

Class_Q i 7 3_ 

llnolc . C b _ 

fiopvrigltf'N 0 .co p y .1 , 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 

\ 
















HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 

R. G. S. COLLAMORE 




HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


A Layman's Version 
A Layman's Message 


BY 

R. G. S. COLLAMORE 

And it was so .—Genesis I 


DORRANCE & COMPANY 

PHILADELPHIA 






CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

I FUNDAMENTALISM . 11 

II THE MAIN ISSUE . 17 

III THE KEY TO DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDA¬ 

MENTALISM . 19 

IV CIRCUMNAVIGATION . 26 

V NAVIGATION . 41 

VI DAY AND NIGHT. 69 

VII CANALS . 75 

VIII UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION . 87 

IX SPEED OF LIGHT . 90 

X CURVATURE . 97 

XI LUNAR ECLIPSES . 103 

XII RIVERS . 109 

XIII THE PROTESTANT CLERGY . 118 

XIV EVOLUTION . 126 

XV COMPARISONS . 132 

XVI RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 151 



















INTRODUCTION 


According to the Book of Genesis, God commanded 
"and it was so”. God looked upon His work and 
everything He had made and saw that "it was good”, 
and "very good”. Thus He briefly, and without quali¬ 
fication, revealed His estimate, conclusion and satis¬ 
faction as to His creation of the earth and the in¬ 
habitants thereof. 

It appears, however, that not only many laymen 
but clergymen as well take issue with Him, and do 
not accept as true the Bible account relative to either 
the creation of the earth or its inhabitants. Others 
do not accept as true the account relative to the crea¬ 
tion of the earth, but do accept the account relative 
to the creation of its inhabitants—thus both groups 
wholly or partially claim that "it was not so”, "not 
good”, "not very good”. And yet many of these same 
people, acknowledging only a partial acceptance, claim 
to accept the Bible as literally true from cover to cover. 

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith 
the Lord.” Isaiah 1: 18. 

In obedience to this expressed command I have been 
persuaded to attempt to offer such assistance as it is 


INTRODUCTION 


possible for me to give to all those involved in the 
unfortunate controversy between the so-called Funda¬ 
mentalists and Modernists or Liberals. 

My work is designed to reveal to both groups cer¬ 
tain mistakes in their premises, as it is immediately 
evident that they do ignore or misconstrue certain 
vital factors. In very many instances they are largely 
controlled by acceptances based on allegations that 
have been erroneously taken for granted as truth. I 
am familiar with the arguments advanced by both 
groups, and such knowledge, combined with other 
knowledge which I have acquired during many years 
of investigation, study and experiment, warrant my 
claim of fitness for the task which I have laid upon 
myself, and which I have been induced to submit here¬ 
with in a report as broad and brief as possible. 

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the 
righteous do?” Psalms 11: 3. 

Robert Gould Shaw Collamore. 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 

I 

F UNDAMENTALISM 

The first conspicuous error made by both 
parties in this controversy over the literal inter¬ 
pretation of the Bible, is the use and application 
of the terms Fundamentalism and Fundamentalist. 

The real Fundamentalist does not subscribe to 
some portions of the Bible and purposely qualify 
or exclude Genesis and other portions coinciding 
with and supporting Genesis. This is just what 
some persons calling themselves Fundamentalists 
do, although by reason of their belief in the 
Copernican theory they are to that extent actually 
Anti-Fundamentalists. 

Two Methodist clergymen apparently grasped 
this important point when one of them from his 
pulpit substantially declared that, so far as he 
knew, “the only true, prominent Fundamentalist 
in the United States is the Reverend Wilbur 
Glenn Voliva, of Zion City, Illinois, who actually 


11 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


preaches and believes in the literal interpretation 
of Genesis and other portions of the Scripture 
bearing thereon.” Another clergyman, the Rev¬ 
erend Herbert A. Sawyer, of Virginia, Minnesota, 
has gone on record as saying, “I cannot conceive 
how the anti-evolutionists accept even the Coper- 
nican theory; between the two schools Voliva is the 
more consistent.” Literary Digest, January 13, 1923. 

With some exceptions Protestant clergymen 
are Modernists and consciously or unconsciously 
believe and support the wrecker and have not yet 
awakened to the fact. “In the face of this in¬ 
famy,” says the Reverend Harold J. Hamilton, of 
Rochester, Michigan, “it is time for the Prot¬ 
estant churches to clean house and banish every 
Modernist minister from his pulpit.” New York 
Tribune. Literary Digest, November 18, 1922. 

The Anti-Fundamentalists or Modernists also 
use the term Fundamentalism incorrectly, so 
this common error should first be corrected by 
both groups. 

According to charges, countercharges, admis¬ 
sions and suggestions by many clergymen, pub¬ 
lished or otherwise announced, there exists at the 
present time, particularly in the Protestant 
churches, offensive and scandalous conditions. It 


12 


FUNDAMENTALISM 


is the clergy itself which made and continues 
this scandal and offense, and we have at once, 
self-admitted guilt and condemnation within the 
very ranks of the contenders. Judging by their 
own self-appraisement, they are not qualified to 
offer any remedy to clarify the situation, or to 
successfully extricate themselves from deplorable 
existing conditions. As sowers and reapers they 
are consistently entitled to the injurious and 
unwelcome harvest they are now reaping. Evi¬ 
dently an outside life-line is needed, as it seems 
that no life-line is at present available within 
their possession or ranks. 

“When Clergymen Disagree, 

What Shall the Humble Layman Think ?” 

{Boston American, June 11, 1923.) 

The article appearing with this caption refers 
to the controversies now pending relative to the 
opinions of the Honorable W. J. Bryan, Dr. Fos- 
dick and Dr. Van Dyke, concerning the evolu¬ 
tionary theories of Charles R. Darwin, the 
globular theory and the cosmogony of the Bible. 
That caption has a consistent mate that is en¬ 
titled to equal prominence and consideration— 


13 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


“When Astronomers Disagree, 

What Shall the Humble Layman Think?” 

Considering that both religion and astronomy 
are treated in that same article, why does the 
Boston American point the query to clergymen 
and omit the astronomers? 

Professor G. P. Serviss, in the Boston American 
of January 21, 1922, voices the opinions of thou¬ 
sands of humble laymen concerning astronomers 
as follows: 

“The letters that I have received on this 
subject are at once amazing and dishearten¬ 
ing. However, there can be no doubt that 
they exhibit truly the state of mental un¬ 
certainty in which thousands find them¬ 
selves with regard to the question whether 
the earth is round or flat. Even many of 
those who say they believe that it is round, 
nevertheless show that they have no settled 
conviction on the subject and simply accept 
the statement because they find it in well- 
accredited books or hear it from persons of 
repute for learning.” 

In that published statement of admissions by 
Professor Serviss, it appears that thousands are 


14 


FUNDAMENTALISM 


in doubt and others have no definite, settled con¬ 
viction other than the plea of taken-for-granted 
as an excuse for acceptance of the globular 
theory. 

Similar admissions previously published by 
Professor E. L. Larkin in the Boston American 
under date of March 24, 1915, are as follows: 

“Our nation is classed in geography as 
enlightened. But the enlightenment regard¬ 
ing even our little solar system, to say noth¬ 
ing of the hundred million suns, is so dim that 
it is really dark or black. The ignorance on 
even elementary astronomy is simply phe¬ 
nomenal.” 

If such an amazing condition of prevailing igno¬ 
rance does exist, then why? What is the cause? In 
spite of the great number of educational mediums 
teaching and enormous expenditures supporting the 
globular theory, there are still thousands of doubters 
not convinced. These are without settled convictions 
of any sort, but occupy themselves with a search for 
information and explanations. Meanwhile perplexity 
is in control, at least so far as the United States is 
concerned. 

Such amazing conditions of abysmal ignorance 


15 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


which were apparent to Larkin and Serviss, are re¬ 
vealed and emphasized in the Fundamentalism feuds; 
and such ignorance and admitted perplexity should 
be met and overcome. But it appears that the forces 
now in control have been and are now unable to meet 
successfully the issues involved, so that the light will 
have to come from other sources. Such sources should 
remain unobstructed. 


16 


II 


The Main Issue 

The so-called Fundamentalists claim to adhere to the 
literal interpretation of the Bible, while the so-called 
Anti-Fundamentalists to a great extent deny and reject 
such an interpretation. Thus is revealed the main 
issue between these two Protestant groups. 

Modern astronomy and cosmogony are the princi¬ 
pal weapons used by the Anti-Fundamentalists. Bib¬ 
lical astronomy and cosmogony should be the weapons 
of the Fundamentalists, but unfortunately they stu¬ 
pidly or unwisely reject them, and through their re¬ 
jection ignore their own best means of attack, and 
support the weapons and become the allies of their 
opponents. They have not yet awakened to their 
suicidal position, by which they have surrendered the 
whip hand to their opponents. 

The subject “calls for light, not laws, for painstak¬ 
ing scholars, not policemen,” writes the Reverend 
Ellison R. Purdy, of the Friends in Minneapolis, “and 
those who are sincerely opposed to evolution should 


17 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


meet the theory on the field where it has gained the 
ascendency, and not on another.” Literary Digest, 
January 13, 1923. 

Correct—that field should be the objective, but what 
is that field ? The following chapter plainly reveals it. 

Truth is truth and science is science, whether dis¬ 
covered and proved by ancients or moderns, by the 
educated or uneducated, professional or non-profes¬ 
sional, majority or minority. But sometimes truth 
and science may be retarded by some unexpected in¬ 
fluence least justified in retarding them; and some¬ 
times truth and science are advanced and perpetuated 
from some source least anticipated. These influences 
and sources are not under the exclusive control of 
any one class whatever. 

What is accepted as scientific truth in one decade, 
is in another decade discarded as false, and such in¬ 
stances and conclusions especially relate to astronomy 
and cosmogony. 


18 


Ill 


The Key to Defeat Anti-Fundamentalism 

The key to defeat infidelity is also the key to defeat 
Anti-Fundamentalism. For that key we can consult 
no better authority than the late Robert G. Ingersoll, 
who knew that key and preached it sincerely, boldly 
and publicly. He also made public his analysis thereof, 
and openly revealed the basis upon which he relied in 
support of his belief. In addition he admitted and 
suggested the method that, if used, would change his 
belief and totally defeat infidelity. It is as follows: 

“If it shall turn out that Joshua was su¬ 
perior to Laplace—that Moses knew more 
about geology than Humboldt—that Job as 
a scientist was the superior of Kepler—that 
Isaiah knew more than Copernicus, and that 
even the minor prophets excelled the inven¬ 
tors and discoverers of our time, then I will 
admit that infidelity must become speechless 
forever.” 

Thus we have Ingersoll’s admission that he was 
principally guided in the formation of his opinions by 


19 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


astronomy and cosmogony and that victory or defeat 
are contained therein. Each contestant, he averred, 
had equal opportunity to use the same key to fact and 
truth. Thus he submitted his analysis for considera¬ 
tion, indicating that modern astronomy and cosmogony 
may be false and Biblical astronomy and cosmogony 
may be true. 

Ingersoll named Laplace, Humboldt, Kepler and 
Copernicus; they constitute his principal authorities, 
his basis, his bulwark and his reliance. Consequently 
they are to be considered and judged accordingly. 

In addition to and corroborating Ingersoll’s analy¬ 
sis is a similar analysis by the late Professor Andrew 
D. White, an ex-President of Cornell University. He 
substantially claimed that the theories of Copernicus, 
Kepler, Galileo, Descartes and Newton, not only dis¬ 
posed of the old theological conception of the Uni¬ 
verse, but also contributed a new basis for the theory 
of evolution conspicuously different from the theory 
of direct creation. This subsequently resulted in the 
formal presentation on July 1, 1858, of two papers 
by Charles R. Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace 
respectively to the Linnaean Society at London, and 
gave birth to the theory of evolution by natural 
selection. In addition Professor White claimed that 


20 


DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM 


the Magellan voyage of 1519-1521 and similar voyages 
since, not only support the evolutionary theory as 
against the theory of direct creation, but also score a 
brilliant victory for science and for proof of the 
rotundity of the earth and the antipodes, thus doubly 
confirming the evolutionary theory. But he admitted 
that the eminent authorities, Linnaeus in the eight¬ 
eenth century and Cuvier and Agassiz in the nine¬ 
teenth century, were prominent opponents of the 
evolutionary theory. A History of the Warfare of 
Science with Theology>, by Professor White. 

The late Professor J. R. Draper, of the New York 
University, held opinions similar to Ingersoll’s and 
White’s. He substantially claimed that whether the 
earth is flat or globular was surely settled by three 
sailors—Columbus, DeGama and Magellan, particu¬ 
larly the latter’s circumnavigation of the globe. Pro¬ 
fessor Draper claimed that he could not understand 
how anybody could doubt the globular form, in view 
of the daily rotation movement and that other move¬ 
ment of the earth on its orbital course around the 
sun. He admitted that doubts and opposition existed, 
especially when considered in relation to the Bible and 
Genesis as against science, and concluded that the 
question cannot be settled until one of the opposing 


21 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


factions surrenders. Professor Draper in The Con¬ 
flict between Religion and Science. 

The conclusions and positive declarations of Draper 
as regards the movements of the earth and truth of 
the same are, however, most emphatically denied and 
rejected by many authorities who even subscribe to 
the globular theory, some of whom are cited in subse¬ 
quent chapters of this book. This proves that others 
than the children of the Church find it possible to 
differ radically from Professor Draper. And here¬ 
with I submit the objection and denial by Professor 
Paul Painleve, of Paris, whose blow from the shoul¬ 
der is as follows: 


“Under the old teaching it was explained 
that the world turned on its axis and in 
space. Of course, this is mere talk; no such 
thing occurs, but such explanation must be 
given so the ignorant can have a mental 
picture of what the universe is like. Neither 
the earth nor the stars whirl in space.” 
Boston Sunday Globe, April 29, 1923. 


Under such a ruling by Painleve, children have been 
taught to believe falsity as fact, owing to their lack 
of mental capacity to understand actual truth. Conse- 


22 


DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM 


quently, not only the children of the Church, includ¬ 
ing Professor Draper, but also all others who accept 
as fact the alleged rotation of the earth and its orbital 
course around the sun, are the victims of delusions 
invented for children and the ignorant. 

Are Genesis and the Bible to be disposed of by 
such delusions accepted as fact by Ingersoll, White and 
Draper, and lauded as science and evolution? What 
else can be expected than conflict between religion and 
alleged science when such falsification is resorted to 
in behalf of the globular theory and evolution? 

Here we have in a nutshell the basis and defense 
of infidelity—the basis and defense of evolution, and 
the basis and defense of the Anti-Fundamentalists, 
all practically in one group, wielding the same wea¬ 
pons, adopting the same methods of attack and launch¬ 
ing against the same objective—the Bible. Their ad¬ 
missions, confessions and claims are open, full and 
free. 

It seems incomprehensible that such intellectuals as 
Ingersoll, White and Draper, and many others, should 
be so deluded, so easily trapped by that Magellan voy¬ 
age and similar voyages, clearly revealing that they 
were engulfed in that maelstrom of mistakes and non¬ 
sense. It is inconceivable that such voyages should be 


23 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


blindly accepted as genuine and taken as sufficient and 
exclusive proof of the fallacy of Biblical astronomy 
and cosmogony. 

To oppose and meet the contentions of the Anti- 
Fundamentalists, it is only necessary to go into their 
camp and turn their own weapons against them. It 
is possible to reveal the weakness and worthlessness of 
their evidence by exposing the contradictions and 
doubts that exist and are emphasized among them¬ 
selves relative to their own conflicting opinions, and 
thus reveal their much-divided house built upon the 
sand. It has been proved again and again that so- 
called great minds are sometimes misled and quickly 
and easily caught, often by quite simple problems. 
They announce ridiculous opinions, give misleading 
advice and make absurd predictions relative to im¬ 
portant problems. The present controversy is a not¬ 
able instance of just such a state of affairs. 

The Fundamentalists should proceed at once to force 
their opponents to occupy the defensive position. The 
primary move to accomplish this result is for the 
Fundamentalists to reject the following alleged proofs, 
assumptions, speculations and contentions upon which 
their opponents rely: 

1 The Magellan voyage and similar voyages. 


24 


DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM 


2 The doctrine of the antipodes. 

3 The doctrine of evolution as set forth in 1858 
and 1859. 

4 The alleged distances of the sun, moon and 

other orbs in space. 

5 The alleged movements of the earth. 

6 So-called science, as alluded to repeatedly. 

The first and second are principally relied upon to 

prove the rotundity of the earth and thus refute the 
Biblical claims. 

The third is called upon to refute the Biblical nar¬ 
rative of Creation. 

The fourth is quoted to refute Scriptural teaching 
as embodied in the declaration of Jesus Christ when 
on the Cross—‘Today shalt thou be with me in 
Paradise.” 

The fifth is relied upon to refute the Biblical claims 
as to the foundation, immobility and stability of the 
earth. 

The sixth is considered the birth date of true science. 


25 


IV 


Circumnavigation 

The Magellan voyage and similar voyages have been 
taken for granted as only possible on an earth of 
globular form, and are cited as proof of rotundity 
and the theory of antipodes. This taken-for-granted 
confidence and acceptance, in combination with other 
equally blind acceptances, have led to some of the 
deplorable straits in which the Fundamentalists now 
find themselves and from which they are struggling to 
extricate themselves. 

Many persons have discovered the falsity of that 
circumnavigation theory and its consequent claims, 
and have rejected it as proof of rotundity and antip¬ 
odes; subsequently, they have wondered why they 
ever believed it to be true. The Fundamentalists also 
should banish that taken-for-granted acceptance and 
analyze the problem as many others have done to ar¬ 
rive at the truth. 

Now as to circumnavigation. A globular earth 
form arbitrarily demands certain conditions that must 


26 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


be complied with and from which evasion is absolutely 
impossible. If all of the surface of the earth as now 
known can be reached otherwise than in compliance 
with these conditions, then the claim to rotundity fails 
accordingly, not only as to navigation, but also as re¬ 
gards many of the claims of astronomy. 

What is circumnavigation in all latitudes and longi¬ 
tudes? Can complete circumnavigation be accom¬ 
plished on both a globular form and on a flat surface? 
Or exclusively on a globular form? Or exclusively 
on a flat surface? Is complete circumnavigation 
necessary in order that all parts of the surface of the 
earth as now known to exist may be reached? These 
questions require detailed, descriptive answers and 
just consideration. 

Complete circumnavigation on a globular form is 
the encirclement of the entire length of every parallel 
of latitude and the entire length of every meridian of 
longitude and the return, in each instance, to point of 
first departure. It must include all latitudes and all 
longitudes and not exclude any of them. Thereby 
the globular form! is tested, and the possibility of 
reaching all points on the surface of the earth as a 
flat surface by latitude and longitude other than by 
complete circumnavigation is also tested. 


27 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Latitude on Globular Form 

According to the exigencies of a globular form, lati¬ 
tude is measured on imaginary lines circling the earth; 
those lines north of the equator have the north geo¬ 
graphical pole as the center for each parallel, and 
those lines south of the equator have the south geo¬ 
graphical pole as the center for each parallel. Both 
geographical poles apply equally as the center for the 
parallel called the equator, and the courses on all 
these parallels are from east to west and west to east. 

Thus the test of latitude on a globular form is as 
follows: All points on the earth’s surface north of 
the equator are so situated that a line from any point 
down and through the earth, would pass through or 
near the interior center of the earth and emerge south 
of the equator. All points on the surface of the earth 
south of the equator are so situated that a line from 
any point down and through the earth would pass 
through or near the interior center of the earth and 
emerge north of the equator. A line from any point 
on the equator down and through the earth would 
pass directly through the interior center of the earth 
and emerge on the equator at a point directly opposite 
the point from which the line started. The zeniths 


28 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


and nadirs of each and every line apply accordingly, 
and it is absolutely necessary that these positions of 
lines, angles, zeniths and nadirs be thoroughly under¬ 
stood as they apply particularly to travel east and 
west and determine the helms to be used on those 
courses. 

Such positions are exacted by a globular form, and 
travel must and will conform thereto if the earth is 
a globular form. To illustrate these various positions, 
—assume a ship is on the 45th parallel north latitude 
heading east; another ship is on the 45th parallel south 
latitude heading east; another ship is on the equator 
heading east. Each ship is to maintain its respective 
latitude going east continuously until it returns to its 
point of first departure. By so doing it returns by 
the west, thus describing a circle by latitude around 
the earth,—assuming, of course, for analysis and illus¬ 
tration, that there is a water course for the entire 
distance of each parallel of latitude. 

Bearing in mind that the lines and zeniths are fac¬ 
tors as previously described, the ship on the 45th paral¬ 
lel north latitude is directly over the line that goes down 
through the interior center of the earth and emerges 
near the 45th parallel south latitude. This ship so 
continues in this relative position throughout its 


29 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


continuous and complete voyage in going east and 
returning by west, and in so doing circles the north 
geographical pole, keeping equidistant at all points of 
its voyage from said pole. Thus this ship’s left or 
port side is always facing the pole, and to do so re¬ 
quires the port helm in turning around the pole to 
hold it to its position in respect to its zenith and nadir. 
In going west and so continuing and returning by 
east, the same conditions apply as to zenith and nadir, 
but in this case the right or starboard side of the 
ship is always facing the pole, and to turn around the 
pole requires the starboard helm. During both of 
these voyages this ship will actually conform to all 
the demands of a globular form. 

Bearing in mind the lines and zeniths as factors as 
previously described, the ship on the 45th parallel 
south latitude is directly over the line that goes down 
and through the interior center of the earth and 
emerges near the 45th parallel north latitude. This 
ship so continues in this relative position throughout 
its continuous and complete voyage in going east and 
returning by west, and in so doing circles the south 
geographical pole, keeping equidistant at all points on 
its voyage from the pole. Thus its right or starboard 
side is always facing the pole, and to do so requires 


30 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


the starboard helm in turning around the pole to hold 
to its position in respect to its zenith and nadir. In 
going west and so continuing and returning by east, 
the same conditions apply as to zenith and nadir, but 
in this case the left or port side of this ship is always 
facing the pole, and to turn around the pole requires 
the port helm on this voyage south of the equator. 
During both of these voyages this ship will have con¬ 
formed to all the demands of a globular form. 

It will be noticed that these two ships in relation 
to each other and as to helms on their respective east 
and west voyages occupy different positions but use 
the same helms differently ,—just the reverse of each 
other. This is a most important point to consider 
and understand, as such factors determine much as 
to what constitutes circumnavigation by east and west 
voyages on a globular form, and induce the question: 
Would those two ships in fact, really occupy such 
different positions in relation to each other and re¬ 
quire such different helm manipulation in going east 
and west? 

The four illustrations refer to a direct east and 
west analysis, but an irregular zigzag east and west 
course is subject to a similar analysis and applies 
accordingly. 


31 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Now as to the third ship, which is on the equator. 
Bearing in mind the lines and zeniths as factors as 
previously described, the ship on the equator is di¬ 
rectly over the line that goes down and through the 
interior center of the earth and emerges on the equator 
at a point directly opposite the point from which the 
line started; the zeniths and nadirs apply accordingly. 
This ship is going straight, whether on its continuous 
eastern voyage or its continuous western voyage, and 
there is no deviation to right or left. Therefore the 
amidship helm is the helm required by a globular form 
on such strictly eastern and western voyages, and the 
equator latitude is the only latitude of the whole one 
hundred and eighty-one latitudes whereon a straight, 
continuous circling of the earth by latitude can be 
rqade. This “going straight” factor has confused 
many persons, as they erroneously believe that it 
applies to all latitudes and the entire extent of each 
latitude, whereas it only applies to the equatorial lati¬ 
tude in its entire distance. 

This last illustration of the third ship refers to a 
strictly east and west analysis, but an irregular equa¬ 
torial course is subject to a similar analysis. 

It should be noticed that while the first two ships 
occupy different positions and use the same helms 


32 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


differently in relation to each other on their respective 
east and west voyages, the third ship occupies quite 
a different position and requires different helm ma¬ 
nipulation. Thus a globular form demands six different 
positions and requirements for these three ships, each 
pursuing easterly and westerly courses, encircling the 
earth according to the globular theory. This again 
induces the question—Would those three ships in fact, 
occupy such different positions in relation to each 
other and require such different helm manipulation 
in going east and west? 

It has been claimed by expert mariners that the 
heeling of a ship obliges certain allowances to be made 
because of the angle created by the heeling position. 
If that angle is an important factor, how much more 
so are the various, pronounced angles when a ship is 
south of the equator, practically upside down in rela¬ 
tion to a ship north of the equator and also to the true 
north, north geographical, and north magnetic poles? 
For both ships rely principally upon instruments in 
reference to the so-called true north for guidance, 
and the globular form demands all these different 
conditions and angles. 

I submitted my analysis as to these three ships and 
their voyages to the Navigation Department of a 


33 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


certain correspondence school which is a recognized 
authority, and received the following reply— 

“Your conclusion is correct and will be all 
the more apparent if the said courses are 
projected on a globe, but does not hold good 
in actual practice.” 

Here we have an authority admitting that my 
analysis as applied to a globular form is correct, and 
also admitting that such positions and conditions are 
not complied with in actual practice of navigation. 
In other words, two admissions which operate against 
the alleged proof that the Magellan voyage of circum¬ 
navigation determined the shape of the earth and that 
shape to be globular. Consequently, if in practice 
other positions and conditions are complied with in¬ 
stead of globular requirements, then the Magellan 
voyage has not proved the rotundity of the earth and 
an antipodes, and science did not gain a crushing 
victory in 1519-1521, or destroy every geographical 
conception based upon sacred writings as is so confi¬ 
dently claimed by Professor Andrew D. White. In¬ 
stead of scoring a victory, science has been in fact, the 
victim of a cruel delusion. 


34 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


Latitude on a Flat Surface 

In relation to a flat or plane surface, latitude is 
measured on imaginary lines circling a central point, 
that point being the north center (or call it pole, for 
brevity), and all these latitudinal lines have a com¬ 
mon center. The parallels begin at that center and 
increase in length as their distance from the center in¬ 
creases. These circles are from east to west and west 
to east, and all points on the earth’s surface are so 
situated on these parallels of latitude that the same 
position applies equally to all objects in connection 
with and relative to vertical and horizontal lines and 
zeniths, there being no divergence between them what¬ 
soever. 

Relative to the flat surface, a ship on any latitude 
north or south of the equator, sailing east and so 
continuing, has the left or port side facing the north 
central pole; in fact, the ship is turning around that 
spot and in so doing uses the port helm in the turning 
process, and in due time returns to the point of first 
departure. A ship on any latitude north or south of 
the equator in sailing west and so continuing, has the 
right or starboard side of the ship facing the north 
central pole; in fact, the ship is turning around that 


35 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


point and in so doing uses the starboard helm in the 
turning process, and in due time returns to point of 
first departure. Thus both the east and west courses, 
on every latitude north and south of the equator and 
including the equator, are accomplished by sailing 
around the north central pole, there being no south 
central pole south of the equator on a flat or plane 
surface. 

Having thus presented the analysis of latitude in 
relation to a globular form and a flat surface, the 
comparison shows that the globular form requires six 
different methods in the process of sailing continuously 
east and west, while the flat surface requires only two 
methods in circumnavigation by latitude. 

Going latitudinally east or west on a flat surface 
the direction is not toward any boundary or edge, as 
is so commonly and erroneously believed, as the proc¬ 
ess of going toward any boundary or so-called edge 
on a flat surface would be by longitude. This has 
not yet been done, either on the theory of a globular 
form or a plane, and to those explorers and mariners 
who have gone farthest south by longitude, there has 
always been in front of them the horizon beyond and 
not a definite edge or boundary. None of them ever 
reached or solved this horizon, and until this is 


36 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


actually accomplished the claims of the experts and 
advocates of the globular theory remain premature 
and worthless. Their claims and arguments are also 
open to criticism and rejection because they have 
so confidently and sarcastically repudiated all those 
others who do not accept the truth of their globular 
theory. 

Longitude on a Globular Form 

In relation to a globular form, longitude is measured 
on imaginary lines circling the earth from north to 
south and south to north, all meeting at the north 
geographical and the south geographical poles, which 
are respectively the points farthest north and farthest 
south of the equator. These longitudinal lines sepa¬ 
rate most widely at the equator. From the equator 
and toward both poles these lines gradually converge 
until they meet and come to a point at each pole 
respectively. 

All of these longitudinal lines or meridians of longi¬ 
tude require only one helm for a ship on a continuous 
voyage from north to south and south to north and its 
return to point of first departure. That helm is the 
amidship helm if the voyage is strictly by longitude. 
Even if the ship sailed an irregular course with the 


37 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


object of circling the earth from north to south and 
return by north, or vice versa, to prove circumnavi¬ 
gation by longitude and thus prove the rotundity of 
the earth and an antipodes, the controlling helm would 
still be the amidship helm. For longitude on a 
globular form requires straight sailing. But such 
straight sailing by longitude as to a complete circling 
of the earth has never yet been accomplished, and is 
quite different from circumnavigating by latitude; 
consequently, not one of the three hundred and sixty 
meridians of longitude has been traveled its entire 
length by any globular method. This reveals that the 
earth as a globular form with a north pole and a 
south pole has not yet been demonstrated as such by 
circumnavigation, and failure to so demonstrate it 
defeats the advocates of the globular theory. In view 
of which, the claims of the advocates of the flat sur¬ 
face theory are to date correspondingly sustained. 

Longitude on a Flat Surface 

Relative to a flat surface, longitude is measured on 
imaginary lines starting from the north central pole 
and extending southward, the lines diverging and in¬ 
creasing in divergence as the distance from the pole 


38 


CIRCUMNAVIGATION 


increases. For illustration,—a wheel laid flat conveys 
a good idea of those longitudinal lines on a flat sur¬ 
face; the hub represents the north central pole and 
the spokes represent the three hundred and sixty 
meridians of longitude. A ship to sail the entire 
length of any of those lines from the north central 
point or spot to the farthest southern point, and from 
the farthest southern point to the north central point 
and continuing on and over that point and down to the 
farthest southern point, completes a voyage covering 
from north to south and south to north, showing that 
complete longitudinal circumnavigation is not neces¬ 
sary in order to reach all points on the surface of the 
earth. Thus the one hundred and eighty-one parallels 
of latitude and the three hundred and sixty meridians 
of longitude on a flat surface cover all points on the 
surface of the earth, the latitudinal lines being circular 
and the longitudinal lines being straight. The circular 
lines require the port helm going east and returning 
by west, and the starboard helm going west and re¬ 
turning by east. The straight lines require only the 
amidship helm, going north to south and south to 
north. And the entire operation is accomplished by 
a simple four-method process as against the eight- 
method process required by the globular form. 


39 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Complete circumnavigation under the requirements 
of the globular theory demands that the earth be com¬ 
pletely circled east and west and north and south, in 
order that all points on the earth’s surface be reached. 
Whereas complete circumnavigation is not necessary 
on a flat surface in order that all points on the earth’s 
surface be reached, as we have pointed out above. In 
order to support and emphasize this contention in 
favor of the flat surface theory, I will submit in the 
next chapter on Navigation, the admissions of certain 
eminent experts and authorities on the globular theory. 


40 


V 


Navigation 

As a preliminary presentation of the issues involved 
relative to navigation in connection with the shape of 
the earth, the following statements of two experts on 
the globular theory are submitted for consideration. 

Statement and prediction by J. von Gumpach as 
published by him in 1862— 

“As bearing upon navigation and com¬ 
merce, it involves the preservation of mil¬ 
lions of dollars’ worth of property and thou¬ 
sands of lives. During those 150 years since 
the time of Sir Isaac Newton, there have 
perished at sea, solely in consequence of his 
erroneous theory, at a very moderate compu¬ 
tation some 10,000 human beings, the ma¬ 
jority of them British sailors, and property 
in addition worth from twenty to thirty mil¬ 
lions of pounds sterling. At the present 
period, the annual losses at sea attributable 
to the same cause, amount to 500 lives and 
property valued at a million pounds sterling. 
All from no other cause save an erroneous 


41 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


astronomical theory. Such losses will con¬ 
tinue unless that theory ceases to be applied 
to the practical purposes of navigation.” 

Statement and prediction of Commander J. Foster 
Stackhouse, published in 1915— 

“Between 1909 and 1913, Lloyds lost 214 
vessels, a total of 260,063 tons, without 
knowing just how, when or where the losses 
occurred. The average of ships lost in this 
way is more than one a week, and represents 
an actual loss of $500 an hour. After I had 
studied such statistics as these for a while 
it seemed to me some serious scientific 
investigation of the matter was absolutely 
necessary.” Boston Sunday Herald, Febru¬ 
ary 14, 1915, and elsewhere. 

Commander Stackhouse also averred that it is now 
believed that Cape Horn's true position is different 
from that shown on the charts and that it is vitally im¬ 
portant that it should be exactly located. Also that 
Hervagault’s Breakers should be located as they may 
be connected with the loss of the Titanic, as the 
Breakers are about sixteen miles southeast of the as¬ 
sumed position of the Titanic when sunk. 


42 


NAVIGATION 


Two steamships sailed from England, both bound 
for New York. One of them, the Titanic, unfortu¬ 
nately was lost, the other arrived safely. Report as 
to the latter vessel appears in the work Wrinkles in 
Practical Navigation, by S. T. S. Lecky, Master 
Mariner, Commander, R. N. R., F. R. A. S., F. R. 
G. S., etc., and substantially contains the following ad¬ 
missions by him. 

It appears that he, with another mariner, were on 
a trip from England to New York City. When near¬ 
ing their destination, they, together with the captain 
and two officers of the ship, arranged to independently 
take observations at noon and compare their findings. 
They very nearly agreed. 

They were favored with excellent conditions, as the 
day was clear and cloudless, the sea smooth and the 
horizon clean-cut, yet within two hours later, on mak¬ 
ing Long Island, New York, they found to their 
astonishment that their findings were fourteen miles 
in error. He admitted that many such cases had come 
under his notice. 

Thus this noted expert admits that five observers, 
including himself, were wrong to the extent of four¬ 
teen miles, although the weather, atmosphere, horizon, 
sea and sun conditions were all that could be desired. 


43 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


They were so wrong that he describes it as a “phe¬ 
nomenon,” and measures it by the term “magnitude.” 
It is worthy of note that he recalls that many such 
cases have come under his notice, yet frequently with¬ 
out disastrous consequences. Why they are so wrong 
he does not know and has no theory to account for 
such errors, but he suggests that mariners look into 
the matter as it may be due to dip or refraction. 

Another case published by Lieut. E. Middleton, of 
England, is substantially as follows— 

I have sailed with very superior navi¬ 
gators in H. M.’s Troopships, and when only 
ten days out of port, we have barely escaped 
disastrous shipwreck, although the weather re¬ 
mained fine during the whole ten days and the sea 
like a pond. Nevertheless, the captain con¬ 
fessed that he was “out” some 200 miles in 
his observations and it was only by a miracle 
we escaped destruction. This escape, coupled 
with Captain Nilsen’s 110 mile error, caused 
me to smell a nautical rat. 

Remarks by officers tended to show that the disbelief 
in the globular form is much wider among educated 
authorities than is supposed. 

Another disaster occurred in October, 1922, as fol- 


44 


NAVIGATION 


lows. A Gloucester fishing schooner was totally 
wrecked when she struck Sable Island, although her 
captain believed he was 14 miles south of the island. 
Later he blamed it to strong tides. A similar disaster 
occurred in January, 1919, to the Northern Pacific off 
Fire Island. A Boston Herald editorial claimed that 
“no one knew why the Northern Pacific was so far 
out of her course; other ships that night fared safely 
through the fog.” 

The George Washington came near to disaster in 
February, 1919. The great transport was running for 
the Boston Light, but was instead headed straight for 
Thacher’s Island, off Cape Ann, and narrowly escaped 
a wreck. President Wilson was on board. In this 
case the error was again attributed to the fog, but this 
vessel, like the Northern Pacific, was too far north. 
There are two other noticeable facts concerning those 
two vessels, and in fact, concerning most sea disasters, 
viz.—the estimates as to errors are uniformly from 
eleven to eighteen miles. 

The mystery which surrounds these figures, eleven 
to eighteen, receives further emphasis by the report 
of the Cruise of the Carnegie — 

“We were astonished as the Carnegie pro¬ 
ceeded south toward the region of Queen 


45 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Mary Land, to find the chart errors in 
declination constantly increasing, until, in the 
region of latitude 60° S. longitude 110° E., 
they reached a maximum of 12° for the U. S. 
and British charts, and of 16' for the German 
charts.” 

It is a conspicuous fact that although these errors 
result in terrible disasters there is little activity as to 
investigations and there is an apparent attempt to 
discourage efforts to solve the mystery. Such a state 
of affairs naturally gives rise to such questions as— 
Why eleven to eighteen miles error in estimates every 
time ? Why the apparent secrecy ? 

The Builder of September 20, 1862, published the 
following suggestion— 

“Assuredly there are many shipwrecks 
from alleged errors of reckoning which may 
arise from a somewhat false idea of the 
general form and measurement of the earth’s 
surface; such a subject, therefore, ought to be 
candidly and boldly discussed.” 

Thus the warnings and conclusions of J. von Gum- 
pach, Commander Stackhouse, The Builder, and Mid¬ 
dleton are in substantial agreement and the citations 


46 


NAVIGATION 


as to the various vessels previously referred to are 
significant facts that should cause fair-minded, un¬ 
prejudiced persons to consider and, if possible, analyze 
the subject. 

Having cited a few cases of disaster, I will now cite 
a few cases of admissions as to the relative value of 
the globular and plane theories, especially as relates 
to plane sailing, and what the globe earth theory can¬ 
not account for. Dunraven in Navigation substan¬ 
tially claimed that— 

“—the sailing, day’s work and all the prob¬ 
lems solved by the help of Traverse Tables, 
would be impracticable on the supposition 
that the earth is a sphere, and for the pur¬ 
poses of navigation the earth is treated as 
flat.” 

This authority admits that it is practicable to navi¬ 
gate the earth only if it is regarded as a plane surface. 
Such an admission induces the question, how is it 
possible to navigate the earth on such a supposition 
and still claim that it actually is not flat? And further, 
why is it impossible to navigate the earth on the 
claim that it is globular? It is equivalent to claiming 
that a person cannot go to his house by a street that 


47 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


does exist, but can go to his house by a street that does 
not exist. 

Professor Evers in Navigation in Theory and 
Practice, substantially admits that— 

“In practice, scarcely any other rules are 
used but those derived from plane sailing, 
and longitude is more frequently found by 
it than by any other method.” 

So what they have claimed as false is apparently 
actually true for purposes of navigation, and the 
globular theory is erroneous. For all credit is given 
to the plane theory and none to the globular. 

We here have two more confessions from two more 
advocates of the globular theory. Professor R. A. 
Gregory, F. R. A. S., in Elementary Physiography ad¬ 
mitted that— 

“Circumnavigating on a flat surface with 
the compass needle pointing to the center 
of the surface, a ship might sail due east or 
west and eventually return to the same point 
by describing a circle.” 

D. Wilson-Barker, R. N. R., F. R. S. E., in Navi¬ 
gation, has admitted that— 

“The fact that the earth has been sailed 


48 


NAVIGATION 


around, is not sufficient proof as to its exact 
shape.” 

Many sea captains and officers haughtily assume to 
tell us all about it because it is their profession, but 
S. T. S. Lecky, Mariner, previously referred to, tells 
us how little they know and how ignorant they are 
on the subject:— 

“He (the captain) only knows that by 
certain formulae learned parrot-like, certain 
results are produced, but how is a mystery.” 

i 

Such a severe criticism of sea captains by Lecky, 
induced me to apply a test. I submitted a certain 
problem in navigation on latitudinal circumnavigation 
of the globular form to three noted nautical schools 
in the United States. The problem consisted of a 
course north of the equator, a course south of the 
equator and a course on the equator, with a ship on 
each course heading east and to so continue the entire 
length of its course and return to point of departure 
—circumnavigation by latitude. Helm manipulation, 
is, of course, the key to this problem, and if that is cor¬ 
rectly stated, all the other factors will conform to the 
requirements of the globular theory. But if helm ma- 


49 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


nipulation is incorrectly described, then Lecky’s criti¬ 
cism is warranted and sustained and such sea captains 
and nautical experts stand self-condemned. 

In answering the problem, the first school claimed 
the amidship helm for all three courses. 

The second school claimed the starboard helm for 
the course north of the equator, the port helm for the 
course south of the equator, and the amidship helm 
for the course on the equator. 

The third school sent a representative to interview 
me personally and subsequently answered as follows— 
“Your problem and your sketch and solution of that 
problem are correct for a globe form.” 

The first two schools disagreed as to the courses 
north and south of the equator, but agreed as to the 
course on the equator; and the third disagreed with 
the first and second schools as to all three courses, but 
agreed with the plane theory as to all three courses. 
Yet this same school adheres to the theory of the 
globular form. 

Such answers from three nautical schools confirm 
Lecky’s “parrot-learning” criticism, and reveal that 
those experts did not know what constitutes east and 
west on a globular form—the form they believe is 
true. 


50 


NAVIGATION 


The answer of the first school indicates that China 
is the antipodes and nadir of the United States and 
vice versa, and that the 45th parallel south latitude 
is the antipodes and nadir of itself. Consequently, 
not one of those antipodal lines would pass through 
or near the interior center of a globular form, and 
neither line would have the length that a globular form 
estimate necessarily demands. 

The answer of the second school indicates that the 
helm for the course north of the equator is in fact 
the helm for the course south of the equator. Just 
the reverse, as the answer should have been port in¬ 
stead of starboard. The helm for the course south 
of the equator, should have been starboard instead of 
port, then the zeniths and nadirs and interior center 
of the globular form would coincide. These are the 
factors that show how navigation determines whether 
the earth is a globe or a plane surface, and the appli¬ 
cation of these factors by experts will show whether 
or not they understand these two theories. 

Considering Lecky’s criticism of sea captains, I 
was not greatly surprised to receive such incorrect 
answers from the three nautical schools noted above, 
nor equally incorrect answers from various sea cap¬ 
tains. Two sea captains in particular, were con- 


51 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 

founded and amazed when their arguments were met 
and their blunders revealed. 

Here is another instance of error that appeared in 
the Boston Sunday Advertiser, November 30, 1919, 
relative to circumnavigation— 

“If we had X-ray eyes that could look 
straight down through the earth to the other 
side at our friends of the antipodes, we should 
see of human beings only the soles of their 
feet pointing up at us. The Chinese hurry¬ 
ing about would look to us as we look to the 
worms, if they had sight, and could look up 
at us from the ground. To the Chinese it is 
you that hang head downward. Compared 
with you the men in China are hanging head 
downward and their houses all have the roofs 
hanging down.” 

According to this description published and dis¬ 
tributed as correct educational information, a line 
straight down from Boston would emerge in China. 
Therefore China, which is on the same latitude as 
Boston, is the nadir or antipodes of Boston, and this 
line would not go through the interior center of the 
earth but through the earth at 42° above the interior 


52 


NAVIGATION 


center of the earth. Such a blunder agrees with the 
one made by the nautical schools. 

If the earth’s form is an oblate spheroid the true 
analysis is as follows:—Taking Boston Light as a 
definite location, approximately 42° 20' north latitude 
and 70° 53' west longitude, a line from this ‘point 
would go straight down, passing near the interior 
center of the earth and would emerge on 42° 43' south 
latitude and 109° 7' east longitude in the ocean south¬ 
west of Australia. But if the earth’s form is a sphere, 
then a line from the Light would go straight down and 
pass exactly through the interior center of the earth 
and emerge on 42° 20' south latitude and 109° 7' 
east longitude in the ocean southwest of Australia. A 
difference of 23 miles of latitude in the comparison of 
oblate spheroid with sphere. Such lines would not 
emerge on their own latitude as the nautical schools 
and the Boston Sunday Advertiser claimed. 

China is to the east and west of Boston and the 
United States, on practically the same latitudes and in 
the northern hemisphere,—not beneath and south of 
us or in the southern hemisphere. 

Another Boston paper, misunderstanding what con¬ 
stitutes an antipodes even for a globular form, pub¬ 
lished the following:— 


53 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


“Ripley’s Ramble Round the World, South 
China Sea, January 23, 1923. The rocky 
Island of Cavite, the naval base of Manila, is 
one of the best fortifications we have. And 
in the harbor, slowly riding at anchor, are 
many destroyers and other armored craft. 
Your Uncle is wide awake. Today at 9.31 
A. M. I was exactly half way around the 
world. The Laconia was about straight down 
from where you stand. 

Latitude 12° 7 North, 

Longitude 118° 54' East.” 

With this statement was an accompanying sketch 
showing a ball form with some buildings at the exact 
top marked “New York”. Straight down at the exact 
bottom of the ball was a steamer bottom up to New 
York and marked “Laconia.” By Robert L. Ripley— 
Boston Globe —April 5, 1923. 

Consider the blunder of claiming that 12° 7' north 
latitude was approximately straight down from 40'° 
42' north latitude, the latitude of New York City, and 
both latitudes north of the equator and in the same 
Northern hemisphere. If the earth were a sphere, the 
antipodes of 40° 42' north latitude would be 40° 42' 
south latitude in the southern hemisphere. If the 
earth were an oblate spheroid the antipodes of 40° 42' 


54 


NAVIGATION 


north latitude would be 40° and a few miles variation 
from 42' south latitude and in the southern hemis¬ 
phere. The antipodes of 12° 7' north latitude would 
be 12° 7' south latitude, and not 40° north latitude. 
China being on the same latitudes as the United States, 
the people of both countries occupy the same upright 
position relative to one another and not feet toward 
feet as those experts erroneously claimed. 

Such men with such ideas as published in the Boston 
Sunday Advertiser and Boston Globe disclose at once 
their ignorance of circumnavigation. Yet they think 
that they can ridicule others who do understand the 
positions of latitude and longitude on the globular and 
plane surfaces of the earth. Such published blunders 
reveal the necessity of just such detailed explanations 
as appear in this book relative to navigation. 

The important question, however, is as to the size 
of the earth south of the equator; whether it is the 
same size or larger than the earth north of the 
equator. If larger, then latitudinal and longitudinal 
lines will be affected thereby and distances increased 
and the duration of darkness will differ from the dura¬ 
tion north of the equator. 

It has been admitted that there are many factors and 
conditions that apply exclusively to the portion of 


55 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


the earth south of the equator. This would indicate 
that it is much larger than the portion north of the 
equator. The darkness is of longer duration south 
than north, but as the exact extent has not yet been 
accurately determined any conclusions as to the exact 
size and shape of the earth are correspondingly un¬ 
certain. 

There are larger water areas and less land surface 
south than north. The presence of land is necessary 
for geodetic surveys, and if it is lacking, little data 
can be secured bearing on the southern regions in 
comparison with the northern. 

It has also been admitted that whether the earth is 
spherical, spheroidal or ellipsoidal there is thus far 
no positive evidence. 

According to explorers Shackelton and Amundsen, 
the South Polar region is a great continent, the South 
Pole itself situated on a plateau 10,000 feet high. And 
according to explorers the North Pole lies at sea level, 
and there is a vast difference between the North and 
South Poles as to fish and animal life, vegetation, ice, 
etc. 

In Anson's Voyage Around the World, by R. 
Walter, the following error as to distance is reported: 


56 


NAVIGATION 


“The whole squadron esteemed themselves 
upwards of 10 degrees more westerly from 
the Straits of Magellan, so that in running 
down by our account about 19 degrees of 
longitude we had not really advanced half 
that distance.” 

Here is a mistake in distance of about 10 degrees, and 
all estimates by a whole squadron were wrong. This 
was because their calculations were made on rules and 
tables based upon the supposition that the southern 
hemisphere was the same size as the northern hemis¬ 
phere, and that distances would be, therefore, equal. 

To cite another and similar instance—in the Voy¬ 
age by the Discovery, by Captain R. F. Scott, he 
states— 

“From Wilkes’ report concerning Eld’s 
Peak and Ringgold’s Knoll land, I must con¬ 
clude those places are non-existent, and there 
is no case for any land east of Adelie Land. 
Thus, once for all, we have definitely dis¬ 
posed of Wilkes’ Land. True geographical 
conditions should be known.” 

Captain Scott came to this conclusion because he as¬ 
serts he actually sailed over the region Wilkes claimed 


57 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


to be land. Notice how sure he was that he had for 
all time settled the mooted question himself. 

In South Sea Voyages, by J. C. Ross, another 
discrepancy is reported: 

“We found ourselves every day from 12 
to 16 miles by observation in advance of our 
reckoning. By our observations at noon, we 
found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of 
our reckoning in 2 days.” 

In the United States Exploring Expedition , by 
Wilkes, we find a similar error reported: 

“In less than 18 hours he was 20 miles to 
the east of his reckoning in 54° 20' south.” 

The reader will note that when the route taken is 
east or west, the same results are obtained; therefore 
currents are not the cause of the discrepancy between 
observation and actuality, as the phenomenon occurs 
on both east and west. 

In an announcement by Andrew Carnegie, reported 
by the Boston Post of January 21, 1911, the Carnegie 
Institute exonerated the captain of a British ship 
who ran his vessel upon the rocks, by proving that 


58 


NAVIGATION 


the British Admiralty charts by which the captain was 
guided were two or three degrees astray. 

Here is another instance where a sea captain lost his 
ship when it was not his fault but was the fault of 
astronomers and nautical experts. But sea captains 
up to date have evidently not cared to defend them¬ 
selves, especially if their own conclusions happen to 
bear out the plane form theory. 

The following paragraph appeared in the Literary 
Gazette, October 19, 1861: 

“Every existing chart and sea route hav¬ 
ing been elaborated under the Newtonian 
hypothesis, it follows that the location of 
rocks, shoals and other maritime dangers 
has all along been misplaced in greater or 
less degree, whereas the true cause, never 
dreamt of, is an astronomical theory.” 

Permit me to cite another illustration of the skepti¬ 
cism of mariners who, to a certain extent, are ap¬ 
parently obliged to remain silent on theoretical prob¬ 
lems of navigation yet are compelled to bear the blame 
in case of disaster. Lieutenant E. Middleton substan¬ 
tially makes the following extraordinary statement: 

“I did not leave the ship before hearing 
certain remarks made by navigators which 


59 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


were so derogatory to Captain Cook, the 
famous navigator, that I forbear to repeat 
them. The fact is that many people in 
authority have long known what to dis¬ 
believe, but do not know even yet what to 
believe or who to believe, and this repre¬ 
sents the real difficulty of the position. The 
rapidity with which the climate changes 
from Antarctic cold to tropical heat, argues 
that the sun must be very close, so as to 
render such a change possible, in that it is a 
very fair argument to urge that with a very 
distant sun and the diameter of the globe 
representing such a very small proportion of 
that distance, the climate of the globe would 
be very much the same all over.” 

Mawson in the Aurora proved the existence of 
Wilkes’ Land by dividing his crew into two parties, 
and encamping on Wilkes’ Laiid 1200 miles apart. 
This, although the fact Wilkes’ Land had been dis¬ 
credited by most Europeans for 72 years. Mawson, 
however, found no trace of Clairie Land seen by 
D’Urville, and Shackelton found no trace of New 
South Greenland and declared it a myth, as his sound¬ 
ings showed such a location to be 1901 fathoms of 
water. Amundsen further reports that “Emerald 
Island on the charts was sailed over by Captain Davis, 


60 


NAVIGATION 


consequently if it exists at all, it must be incorrectly 
charted, and there are other islands charted the posi¬ 
tions of which are doubtful.” 

The Carnegie explorers and scientists arrived in 
San Francisco on February 21, 1921, and reported 
that “The Royal Company Islands noted on many 
maps and projections as at a point south of Australia, 
cannot be located and perhaps never actually existed, 
although they were claimed to have been discovered 
70 years ago by a British mariner. Similar errors in 
distances were noted in the Indian Ocean. The Car¬ 
negie sailed right over the region charted as the Royal 
Company Islands. It will take more than this to shake 
the belief of sea-faring men in the Royal Company 
Islands/’ Boston Transcript. 

This “now you see it, now you don’t,” as to the 
Royal Company Islands, apparently is a duplicate in¬ 
stance of the Wilkes’ Land controversy, with 72 years 
and 70 years respectively applying to the persistence 
of the myths in both cases. Wilkes, Scott, Shackel- 
ton, Mawson, Amundsen and the Carnegie explorers 
and scientists have made reports as to the far south 
regions, and it is very conspicuous and significant that 
each finds something that some others do not find, 
and at the same time each deny something that others 
claim they did find. 


61 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


D’Urville finds Clairie Land, but Mawson denies its 
existence. Wilkes finds a large stretch of land that 
now bears his name, but Scott and others called it a 
myth only to have Mawson re-discover it. Shackelton 
finds no trace of South Greenland, which is duly 
charted, and Amundsen and Captain Davis find no 
trace of Emerald Island, also charted. The Carnegie 
experts deny the existence of the Royal Company 
Islands, which sea-faring men declare do exist. All 
of these various claims and denials relate to the re¬ 
gions south of the equator and toward the alleged 
South Pole. Such variance induces the following 
questions: 

What kind of observations of latitude and longi¬ 
tude did Captain Scott make when he failed to find 
Wilkes’ Land, a stretch of land over 1200 miles long 
equivalent to the distance from New York City to 
Havana, Cuba? 

Yet Mawson found it and reported it and his find¬ 
ings were corroborated by Shackelton. What kind of 
observations of latitude and longitude did Mawson 
make when he failed to find Clairie Land, found and 
reported by D’Urville? What kind of observations of 
latitude and longitude did Shackelton make when he 
failed to find New South Greenland, which is duly 


62 


NAVIGATION 


charted ? The same question may be applied to 
Amundsen, Captain Davis and the Carnegie experts 
relative to Emerald Island and the Royal Company 
Islands respectively. 

The Boston Post of December 9, 1921, reports the 
following relative to sea disasters: 

“A year’s record to June 30 showed 222 
American craft foundered and 555 figured 
in other misfortunes. All the other nations 
have similar lists. It is difficult to under¬ 
stand, with all the wonderful inventions now 
at hand, how there could have been so many 
collisions and sinkings. The sea yet takes 
its toll and there is much marine work to be 
done, so much in fact, that it may take 
generations of men to complete it.” 

Comparison with the estimates and conclusions of 
the Literary Gazette of 1861, The Builder of 1862, 
J. von Gumpach in 1862, and Commander Stack- 
house in 1915, all reveal such important reports of 
mysterious happenings and significant warnings that 
people should certainly consider the subject seriously. 

The North Pole Skepticism 

Consider the charges and countercharges, the bit¬ 
terness and rivalry that were disclosed in the contro- 


63 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


versies between Cook and Peary and their respective 
supporters relative to the alleged discovery of the 
North Geographical Pole. Prince Albert of Monaco, 
the eminent geographer and scientist, doubted Peary 
and practically charged him with ‘Voluntary decep¬ 
tion .”—Boston Transcript, July 1, 1922. Consider 
that General Greely, the famous explorer, supported 
the contention of the Prince of Monaco, but claimed 
that “he did not think Peary wilfully lied but was 
probably mistaken.” Boston Sunday Post, July 9, 
1922. 

MacMillan, the explorer, claimed that he “found 
land very different from the current delineations on 
the latest and most authoritative maps”; that he “sailed 
over areas indicated as land” on those maps and that 
“nearly all points are incorrect astronomically in the 
Arctic region.” Boston Sunday Globe, August 27, 
1922. Boston Post, October 6, 1922. 

Stefansson, the explorer, makes the following state¬ 
ment relative to the Arctic regions and maps of same: 

“We look at a map of the northern hemis¬ 
phere— one that has the equator for its cir¬ 
cumference. Such a map compels the realiza¬ 
tion that the Arctic is not at the top of the 
world, but central with reference to the 


64 


NAVIGATION 


lands on which we live, that radiate from it 
as from a hub. You will probably discover 
that in comparison with the rest of the world, 
the Arctic is much smaller than you thought. 
You may discover, too, that you cannot buy 
in England a map that shows the whole 
northern hemisphere (in the sense in which 
numerous maps show the eastern hemis¬ 
phere), and that discovery may indicate how 
new to most of us must be such ideas as lie 
back of the serious projects of Admiral Mof¬ 
fett and General Brancker. If they be new, 
let us give them serious thought in case 
they may prove more important than we at 
first supposed.” Boston Transcript, Sept. 22, 
1923. 

This additional evidence by another explorer as 
to errors in the present maps and the lack of correct 
maps, reveals not only uncertainties concerning dis¬ 
tances at the poles and equator, but concerning all 
points lying between. All these uncertainties and 
errors tend to support the flat-earthian’s contentions. 

The Antarctic and South Pole Skepticism 

Consider the bitterness, denials, jealousies and rival¬ 
ries of the various explorers and nations over the ex¬ 
ploration of Antarctic regions and the alleged South 


65 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Geographical Pole. Consider the alleged deception of 
Scott by Amundsen, whereby Scott was given to un¬ 
derstand that the voyage by Amundsen was not for 
the purpose of reaching the South Pole but quite 
otherwise. Yet that was exactly Amundsen’s goal. 
Because of that deception which gave Amundsen 
priority England could not be credited with the dis¬ 
covery of either the North or South Poles. Scott was 
so shocked when he learned that Amundsen had out¬ 
witted and beaten him that he preferred death to an 
inglorious return home. 

I ask again, are the Sacred Writings to be attacked 
and discredited because of allegations by such men 
as Magellan, Cook, Peary, Amundsen and Scott? The 
answer should be, I think, ‘‘No.” 

In closing this chapter on navigation, I submit for 
consideration the following questions: How could 
Amundsen and Scott reach approximately the point 
claimed to be the South Geographical Pole with the 
British charts to guide them in the various latitudes 
and longitudes that they reported, when, according to 
the Carnegie (non-magnetic ship) experts, those 
charts were incorrect as to all latitudes south of the 
equator down to the 60th parallel, with 30° more to 
go south before the 90th parallel would be reached, 


66 


NAVIGATION 


with the charts 12° in error even at the 60th parallel? 
Especially, considering that Amundsen and Scott did 
not know at that time that the charts were wrong, as 
the Carnegie experts did not find the errors until after 
that alleged discovery of the Pole. How could Shack- 
elton, with the use of such incorrect charts, go to any 
such points of latitude and longitude as he reported 
and be sure of it, when he also was ignorant of the 
errors which were found later by the Carnegie ex¬ 
perts? 

Not only are plane earth projections used as in 
navigating the seas, but the plane factor also applies 
to the land as well as to the sea. Note the following: 

“The Plane Table is used in the Coast 
Survey as the principal instrument for map¬ 
ping the topographical features of the coun¬ 
try, and is universally recognized as the 
most efficient and accurate means for that 
purposed U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

“The center of population of the country 
is determined by regarding the United States 
as a plane surface.” Boston Globe, October, 
1921. 

The principle of a plane surface controls observa¬ 
tions on both land and sea, but the plane maps and 


67 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


charts now in general use showing the Mercator pro¬ 
jections, are quite different from the genuine plane 
projections of the flat earth theory. The latitudes and 
longitudes of the Mercator projections are represented 
by squares, whereas the latitudes on the flat earth pro¬ 
jections are shown as circles, and the longitudes as 
beginning at the north center and extending south¬ 
wards as straight lines diverging as they extend south¬ 
ward. But even with this difference, navigators con¬ 
tinue to rely to a great extent upon the Mercator 
charts and maps and mingle with them certain globular 
theory features and estimates. Such applications in¬ 
evitably result in many contradictions in navigation. 


VI 


Day and Night 

To account for day and night on our earth is a 
problem that is as popularly misunderstood as the 
problem of the east to west or west to east circum¬ 
navigation of the earth. The argument resorted to 
by those persons who do not understand existing con¬ 
ditions and the application of certain factors that con¬ 
trol the problem of day and night, assert that if the 
earth were flat, then there would be day all the time 
and no night. Such an argument reveals at once that 
such claimants have not grasped the true situation. 

An illuminating orb or device only lights a given 
area commensurate with the size and brilliance, power 
of penetration, distance, height and perspective of the 
orb. The sun as an illuminating body lights a cer¬ 
tain area of the earth. The area lighted is practically 
round and the center of the sun is directly over its 
center. The light becomes fainter as it extends to¬ 
ward and eventually reaches its limit of penetration, 
that limit being the rim or boundary of the lighted 


69 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


area. All the area beyond the boundary is propor¬ 
tionately dark so far as the sun is concerned. Conse¬ 
quently we have dawn and twilight at the extreme 
edges, and elsewhere within lighted area we have 
complete day. Beyond the rim we have darkness and 
night, so far as the sun is concerned. 

As the sun advances on its course westward, so also 
does the light from the sun advance westward, and 
becomes dawn to that portion of the earth that just 
previously has been night. This dawn is followed by 
complete day. At the same time the twilight boundary 
also advances and becomes twilight to that portion 
of the earth that just previously has been day, and 
twilight is followed by darkness, then by complete 
night. The process continues as the sun circles the 
earth from Cancer to Capricorn and Capricorn to 
Cancer. Some parts of the earth have more or less 
light or darkness and at different times than some 
other parts. Bear in mind the position of the sun 
relative to the different lengths of latitude, the equator, 
the north geographical pole and the midnight sun fea¬ 
ture, in combination with height of the sun above the 
earth, distance and perspective. 

This process is well illustrated by a person carrying 
a lighted lantern at night in a flat field. The light 


70 


DAY AND NIGHT 


illuminates a certain area of the ground, representing 
daylight. The ground outside the lighted area is dark 
and represents night. The rim of the lighted area 
represents dawn and twilight. As the person advances 
with the lantern, so too does the light of the lantern 
advance, the ground is progressively lighted and dark¬ 
ness follows in the rear. 

According to the globular theory the sun is an im¬ 
mense orb, millions of miles distant from the earth, 
in comparison with which the earth is as a mustard 
seed to an orange. The insignificance of our earth in 
space is a favorite hobby with many who hold to the 
globular theory, and according to them, both the sun 
and the earth are suspended in space. The rays of light 
of the sun penetrate space in every direction and fill 
a cubical content three billion, six hundred million 
miles in diameter. The so-called insignificant “speck” 
of earth is located within that vast, brilliantly lighted 
area of space, being ninety to one hundred million 
miles distant from the sun. This distance is small in 
comparison with their estimate of the three billion, 
six hundred million miles penetrated by the light of 
the sun; consequently their theory of the location of 
the earth in that vast lighted area reveals that the tiny 
earth globe is completely surrounded by light. Just 


71 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


as would be in the case of a mustard seed suspended 
in a room brilliantly lighted by a device that com¬ 
pletely and perfectly lighted the whole space and com¬ 
pletely excluded darkness. Under such conditions 
there would be perpetual light all the time on all sides 
of the mustard seed. 

In view of all the conditions exigent to the globular 
theory relative to the sun and diffusion of its light, 
the argument resorted to so confidently by some per¬ 
sons that if the earth were flat there would be all 
day and no night, instead of applying to a flat surface 
actually applies to a globular form. The fact that we 
do have day and night on our earth does not bear out 
the alleged size and distance of the sun and the pene¬ 
trating power of sunlight. 

According to the law of perspective as analyzed by 
some authorities, “a straight line infinitely long has 
its vanishing point, and a line lying in a plane like the 
sea also has its vanishing point.” Consequently, lines 
to the sun, to the moon and to ships at sea, relative 
to the horizon (which is called the vanishing trace of 
the system of planes), have their vanishing points in 
the trace of their planes. The analysis of such lines 
is further explained and demonstrated in Chapter VII 


72 


DAY AND NIGHT 


relative to canals, and is made particularly clear by 
the example of the Panama Canal. 

To account for day and night by the globular theory 
forces globularists to resort to extraordinary experi¬ 
ments to prove that the earth rotates. One of these is 
the so-called Pendulum Experiment. Some globular¬ 
ists accept it as proof, others reject it as ridiculous 
and not proof. Here again we disclose more contra¬ 
dictions and weak links in the chain of alleged proofs 
that are brought against Genesis. 

In the Figure of the Earth , by J. von Gumpach, it 
appears that there were sixty-three experiments with 
the pendulum made in various latitudes north of the 
equator, and twenty-nine experiments south of the 
equator by Captains Foster and Kayter and General 
Sabine. All of these experiments demonstrated that 
the pendulum as a factor of proof is absolutely worth¬ 
less. There have been many other experiments re¬ 
sulting in failures reported in the English Mechanic 
of October 23, 1896; by Iconoclast in Earth Review, 
April-May, 1897; the Liverpood Mercury; the Man¬ 
chester Examiner Supplement, and in a lecture de¬ 
livered in Berlin, Germany, by Professor Shoepfer. 
A report of this lecture appears in the Scientific Amer¬ 
ican Supplement, of April 27, 1878. It discloses the 


73 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


fact that Professor Shoepfer had been appointed to 
assist in experiments relative to the Leon Foucault’s 
pendulum theory, and the outcome of these experi¬ 
ments caused Professor Shoepfer to reject the Coper- 
nican theory that he had taught for many years, and 
persuaded him to believe that the earth does not re¬ 
volve on its axis and does not go around the sun, and 
that there is no proven evidence for such a theory. 

Of course, Alfred Russel Wallace, Professor Pain- 
leve, and others referred to in this book, who also re¬ 
jected the rotation claim, were aware of the Pendulum 
Experiment claims by others, yet rejected those claims. 


74 


VII 


Canals 

According to the exigencies of the globular theory, 
“Canals have to be constructed in strict accordance 
with the rotundity of the earth; great engineering 
works could not endure for a day if they were con¬ 
structed on the theory that the earth is a plane. As a 
matter of fact, the apparent level at any point is con¬ 
tinually corrected at successive points as the survey 
advances, so that it shall correspond with the curvature 
of the earth, and the Panama and Suez Canals were 
constructed exactly in accord with the theory that the 
earth is round, and distinctly in disaccord with the 
theory that the earth is flat. So that the proponents 
of the flat earth theory assert, either with colossal 
impudence or colossal ignorance, that the engineer’s 
datum level indicates an absolute horizontal plane ex¬ 
tending the whole length of the work from Colon to 
Panama.” Such is the analysis and claim of Profes¬ 
sor Garrett P. Serviss as published in the Boston 
American under date of January 21, 1922. 


75 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


It induces the following questions and reply. Why 
do all the plans and profile projections of the Panama 
Canal as used by the constructors, copies of which 
have appeared in various publications, show all lines 
drawn exactly in accord with the descriptions and 
claims of the advocates of the plane theory, and in dis¬ 
accord with the claims of Professor Serviss and other 
advocates of the globular theory? Why are such flat 
earth plans and projections used and so represented 
in various publications if they are wrong and false? 
Have any such globe earth plans and projections as 
indicated by Professor Serviss ever been drawn, used 
or represented in publications? And if they have, 
when, where and by whom? If not, why not? 

Professor Serviss claims that it is colossal impu¬ 
dence or colossal ignorance on the part of advocates 
of the plane theory to claim that “the engineer’s datum 
level indicates an absolute horizontal plane extending 
the whole length of the work.” If his denial is correct 
and the claim of the flat earth experts is incorrect 
and false, then why did the British House of Parlia¬ 
ment issue in The Book of Standing Orders — “Im¬ 
peratively demand and require the engineers and con¬ 
structors of Great Britain, that in the case of construc¬ 
tion of a canal, cut , navigation, turnpike or other 


76 


CANALS 


carriage road or railway, to have a datum horizontal 
line which shall he the same throughout the whole 
length of the work”? 

How could the Chinese construct their Grand Canal, 
which is the largest in the world and beside which the 
Panama Canal is a pigmy, and their other canals and 
engineering works, when all such construction was 
done before the alleged discovery of the globular earth 
form? Prior to the alleged discovery and partial 
acceptance of the earth as a globular form, how could 
other canals be constructed in Europe and elsewhere 
when allowances were made for no such form or size 
of the earth? 

“Roman Catholic Authorities were combatting and 
rejecting the globular theory and issuing edicts against 
it and restraining the faithful under penalty from be¬ 
lieving such a theory until 1758, A. D., under Pope 
Benedict XIV.” Astronomical Essays —Reverend 
G. V. Leahy, S. T. L., 1910. How then could any 
canal or engineering work be surveyed, estimated and 
constructed with allowances for the curvature of the 
earth as of a globular form by any Roman Catholic 
prior to the removal of that condemnatory decree in 
1758 A. D.? 

It appears that upon the request of an English 


77 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


publication, the Earth Review of London, three re¬ 
ports were received from three English authorities 
relative to the problem of the alleged curvature of the 
earth in connection with the construction of canals and 
public works, substantially as follows: 

In February, 1892, the Engineer’s Office 
of the Manchester Ship Canal Co., England, 
reported “that it was not the practice in 
laying out Public Works to make allowance 
for curvature of the earth.” 

In October, 1893, G. W. Winckler, Assoc. 
Inst. C. E., M. E. I. C., of England, a surveyor 
and engineer of many years’ experience, over his 
signature, reported concerning allowance made 
for the curvature of the earth, that “nothing of 
the sort is allowed.” 

In January, 1896, T. Westwood, of Eng¬ 
land, a surveyor, over his signature, reported 
that “not the least allowance was made for 
curvature of the earth” (relative to a certain 
work) “although if the earth were a globe, 
112 feet ought to be allowed.” 

In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Thomas Winship, 
a friend of mine, as to whether any allowance was 


78 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


made for the curvature of the earth in the construc¬ 
tion of the Panama Canal, a reply was received from 
the Isthmian Canal Commission as follows—“In re to 
allowances for curvature of the earth in working the 
Canal, no allowance was made.” 

Correspondence between the officials of the Panama 
Canal and myself relative to the feature of convexity 
of the earth, reveals their admissions that “Such con¬ 
vexity cannot be shown by or in any way through the 
construction plans and projections of the Panama 
Canal.” But said plans and projections do show that 
the construction corresponds with and applies to a flat 
or plane earth. 



Arcs - therefore a chord 


not drawn to scale but 
sufficient for illusuaiton 


79 









HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


The Globular Theory Profile Projection 

This sketch has eleven lines—six of those lines are 
vertical lines drawn as required by a globular form, 
and three of those lines marked B, C, D, stretch from 
Colon to Panama; B represents the high water line; 
C represents the mean sea level line, otherwise known 
as the datum line; D represents the low water line— 
each line representing about fifty miles linear measure¬ 
ment. 

The uppermost line marked A represents the line 
indicating the course from the locks at Colon to the 
locks at Panama, a distance of about thirty-one miles. 
The lines marked A, B, C, D, are curved in arcs to 
conform to the requirements of the globular form 
theory. The line marked E is a chord for the lines 
marked B, C, D (especially for C, the datum line), 
or straight line between Colon and Panama, said chord 
line being shorter than the lines B, C, D. The dis¬ 
tance straight down from the middle of the line 
marked A to the middle of the line marked C, the 
datum line, is about eighty-five feet, and if continued 
straight down to the line marked E would have an 
additional length of 417 feet 8 inches, or a total of 
about 502 feet 8 inches from A to E. 


80 


CANALS 


Thus a globular form projection for illustration 
requires five lines—four of them arched and one of 
them straight. The middle of the datum line C to 
Colon is about twenty-five miles and the allowance 
for curvature of the earth for this distance is 417 feet 
8 inches, and same estimates apply from the middle of 
the datum line C to Panama, but the distance from 
Colon to Panama or vice versa being about fifty miles, 
then the allowance for curvature of the earth for the 
fifty miles would be 1,667.50 feet. 

In addition to these lines marked A, B, C, D, E, 
there are six vertical lines marked F, G, H, I, J, K, 
a sufficient number of vertical lines to represent the 
direction upwards toward the respective zeniths, also 
representing the direction downward toward the in¬ 
terior center of the globular form. From thence they 
continue downward and emerge at the antipodes or 
nadir. As they continue upwards the lines diverge 
and the farther they are extended the more they di¬ 
verge. But the lines going downwards converge and 
meet and cross one another at or near the interior 
center of the earth; continuing downwards they 
separate more and more as they approach their re¬ 
spective antipodes. 

Consequently, all such lines, estimates and applica- 


81 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


tions would have to be complied with and so appear in 
illustrations connected with the Panama Canal con¬ 
struction plans, according to the claims of those who 
assert that the canal and similar works would not 
endure for a day if not actually constructed under 
such methods and applications. 


The Flat Earth Profile Projection 

This sketch has ten lines. Six are vertical lines and 
four are horizontal lines. Three of the lines marked 
B, C, D, stretch from Colon to Panama; B repre- 




Colon 


Panama 


Flat or Plane profile projection 
Tlo arcs-therefore no chord 


sents the high water line, C represents the mean sea 
level line, otherwise known as the horizontal datum 
line, and D represents the low water line; each line 
represents about fifty miles. The uppermost line 


82 













CANALS 


marked A represents the course between the locks at 
Colon end and the locks at the Panama end, a distance 
of about thirty-one miles. All four lines are repre¬ 
sented as straight horizontal and no fifth line or chord 
is necessary or possible, as there is no arc. The dis¬ 
tance from the middle of the line A down straight 
to the datum line C, is about eighty-five feet. 

In addition to these four lines, there are six vertical 
lines in the sketch, E, F, G, H, I, J, and all extending 
upwards toward their respective zeniths, and also in¬ 
dicating their downward direction to the low water 
line of the Panama Canal. Whether these six lines 
are extended upwards or downwards, they do not 
meet, diverge or converge but remain the same dis¬ 
tance apart at all points of their lengths, and to date 
no known nadir or visible antipodes exists. If the 
earth is flat, then such lines and conditions as are in¬ 
dicated in this sketch will exist and must be complied 
with, and will appear accordingly in all projections. 

It is important that the law of perspective is demon¬ 
strated and established by this profile projection of 
the plane theory and by similar projections drawn and 
used in connection with the construction of the 
Panama and Suez Canals. It plainly answers the 
arguments of the globular form advocates who claim 


83 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


that the curvature of the earth accounts for the appear¬ 
ance and disappearance of ships at sea over the 
horizon. This important feature of perspective ap¬ 
pears in the profile projections of the Panama Canal: 
the line marked A in the plane sketch is the line from 
the locks at Colon to the locks at Panama, this line 
being about thirty-one miles in length. Leaving Colon 
and sailing to Panama, whether the course is winding 
or not, ships recede from view, hull first and then the 
masts. In approaching Panama, the masts will ap¬ 
pear first, then the hull. Exactly the same conditions 
apply (barring interference by obstructions) to ships 
going from Panama to Colon. For each direction 
the same perspective applies equally and the same for 
all ships on all other courses. In the Culebra Cut, 
nine miles in length, ships disappear from view and 
appear to view exactly as ships do on other courses in 
going nine miles away from an observer toward the 
horizon; or coming from the horizon toward the ob¬ 
server. All these horizontal lines represent a perfect 
illustration of the law of perspective, solving the 
problem of the appearance and disappearance of ships 
and other objects at various distances, the rising and 
setting of moon and sun, the phenomenon of day and 
night on a flat surface. Therefore it completely an- 


84 


CANALS 


swers and disposes of the alleged curvature and dip 
claims set forth by globularists. 

While it requires some time and many words to 
explain these two sketches properly, the conspicuous 
difference between them may be seen at a glance. 

Refraction as a factor has been ignored in the 
descriptions of both projections, because it does not 
consistently work out with the requirements of the 
globular theory estimates for alleged curvature, alti¬ 
tudes and distances in connection with the visibility 
or invisibility of objects. Refraction is a matter of 
atmospheric conditions, variable and uncertain, and it 
would apply more consistently, if applied at all, to the 
flat earth than to the globular form projection. 

There are many projections of the Panama and 
Suez Canals, and such projections appear in various 
publications and are easily procured for examination. 
All of them are in accord with the flat earth cosmogony 
and in disaccord with the globular theory. During 
many years of investigation and inquiry, I have never 
been able to find, either for inspection or possession, 
even one globular theory projection of the Panama 
or Suez Canals, and I have never met or heard of any 
person who has ever seen or heard of any such globular 
earth projection. Such a situation induces the fol- 


85 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


lowing question. Why are the profile projections of 
the Panama and Suez Canals always drawn, used and 
published in accord with the flat earth theory, if that 
theory is wrong and in disaccord with the form of 
the earth, and not drawn, used and published in accord 
with the globular theory, if that theory is right and in 
accord with the form of the earth as claimed by 
many? 

It is not necessary for one to go to the seashore to 
observe how ships appear to view when approaching 
and disappear when departing in relation to distance 
and horizon, or how the moon and sun appear in rela¬ 
tion to the horizon and the phenomenon of day and 
night. Necessary investigation has already been made 
and the essential information has all been revealed and 
accounted for by the straight lines that apply to both 
the construction of the Panama Canal and to the flat 
earth of Bible cosmogony. The Panama Canal and 
the Suez Canal projections and construction plainly 
and conspicuously tally with Scripture, and definitely 
contradict and refute the contentions of those who 
advocate and support the globular theory. 


86 


VIII 


Universal Gravitation 

It is not generally known that there are several 
conflicting theories as to the so-called Gravitation 
Theory which is alleged as necessary to the mainten¬ 
ance of our earth and which is used to support the 
Copernican-Newtonian System or School. This 
theory has its advocates and its opponents, even within 
the ranks of its followers, conflicting not only as to 
the existence or non-existence of gravitation and its 
operations, but as to its cause, origin and necessity. 
Such wholesale opposition, emphatic contradiction and 
ridicule would indicate that there is nothing left of 
the law of gravitation for a would-be believer to 
believe, or a would-be skeptic to oppose. Gravitation 
is a subject exposed to the ridicule of both globular- 
ists and flat earth advocates, and in view of such 
conditions it is practically a waste of time to give any 
more than a very brief consideration. For this reason, 
I will only cite from one English authority and two 
authorities in the United States. 


87 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Alfred Russel Wallace in his opinion finally placed 
the earth and not the sun, in the center of the universe. 
Wallace’s contention disposes of the orbital course of 
the earth around the sun, and thus disposes of the 
sun’s power of gravitation which holds the earth in its 
course. 

A letter to me dated June 9, 1922, contains the ad¬ 
mission that “The latest results of physics show a lack 
of any evidence that the earth moves in space.” This 
not only confirms Wallace but confirms the absolute 
nothingness of alleged gravitation. In addition to 
these two admissions, we have the admission by emi¬ 
nent scientists in a general meeting of the American 
Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, April 22, 1922, 
that the gravitation law is false and to be rejected 
with both the Newton and Einstein Theories. And 
so it goes, and yet other intellectuals, especially among 
the clergy, swallow the bait, hook and line, just as if 
gravitation was a proved fact and unanimously ac¬ 
cepted as such. 

Let us now ascertain how all these remarkable and 
amazing theories are arrived at and presented to the 
unsuspecting public. The following was published by 
Professor G. P. Serviss in the Boston American, May 
27, 1914: 


88 


UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION 


“For many minds the chief charm of 
astronomy is the immense stimulus that it 
offers to the imagination. With all the uni¬ 
verse before him where to choose, a man can 
make worlds, suns and solar systems to suit 
himself, while science furnishes him with 
stupendous figures, illimitable prospects, mys¬ 
terious objects, suggestions of uncompre¬ 
hended laws and of a boundless variety of 
conditions based upon an essential unity of 
composition which can be pressed into serv¬ 
ice to support almost any theory, however 
extraordinary and however contrary to 
human experience.” 

Evidently such is the character of the evidence 
used to discredit the Bible and the declaration of Jesus 
Christ when on the Cross, “Today shalt thou be with 
me in Paradise.” 


89 


IX 


Speed of Light 

According to the Copernican-Newtonian School ad¬ 
vocating the globular theory, the estimates of the dis¬ 
tances from the earth of the sun and other orbs in 
space are so conflicting and unreliable that it is difficult 
to make a selection; in fact, it is simply take your 
choice, one estimate is as correct as any other of the 
generous supply offered by some scientists. 

It appears that the principal factor used to determine 
the distance of the sun and various orbs in space, is 
called speed of light. This unit of measurement was 
first used by Ole Roemer in 1676, relative to the posi¬ 
tions of Jupiter’s moons in connection with the width 
of the earth’s orbital course around the sun, the width 
of said course at that time being estimated as about 
192,000 miles; it has subsequently been estimated as 
approximately 186,324 miles. Therefore light moves 
about 186,324 miles a second. 

Even with this alleged definite basis to determine 
distances, the estimates of astronomers and scientists 


90 


SPEED OF LIGHT 


vary so widely that they might almost as well have 
no basis. Some of the estimates of some of the globu- 
larists as to the distance of the sun from the earth 
are as follows: 


Copernicus’ computation, 

Kepler’s 
Newton’s 
Martin’s 
Cassini’s 

Airy and Stone’s 
Hansen’s 
Ball’s 
Laing’s 
Dilworth’s 
Encke’s 
Hinds’ 

Huyghens’ 

Gillis and Gould’s “more than 96,000,000 
Mayer’s “ 104,000,000 


3,391,200 miles 
12,376,800 
about 40,000,000 
81 to 82,000,000 
85,000,000 
91,400,000 
91,659,000 
92,700,000 
93,000,000 
93,726,900 
95,274,000 
95,298,260 
96,000,000 


about 


The transit of Venus occurred June 3, 1869, and 
various governments made observations. In Europe 
there were fifty stations, in Asia six stations and in 
America seventeen stations and the estimates made by 
all of them varied from eighty-eight million miles to 
one hundred and nine million miles. Other experts 
of the four schools supporting the globular theory 


91 




HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


disagreed, not only as to distance but as to the basis 
of computation. They denied the assumption that 
there was any orbital movement of the earth around 
the sun to furnish a basis for determining the al¬ 
leged speed of light. 

It has been claimed that the most rapid motion 
known is the passage of a ray of light or an electrical 
current. But even this speed, said to be 186,324 miles 
a second, is slow in comparison with the rapidity of 
vision, for the various enormous distances of sun, 
moon and stars from the earth are bridged by a simple 
glance of the eye without any difference in the time 
required, whether the distance be thousands, millions, 
billions or trillions of miles. Similar absurdities are 
revealed in the computation of the sizes of various 
stars, the measurement of the speed of light, and the 
duration of the so-called light years, as well as the 
alleged enormous length of time that it takes for light 
to travel from an orb to the earth, while it takes, as a 
matter of fact, only an insignificant time for eyesight 
to travel to any of the orbs. 

The alleged distances from the earth of the moon, 
sun and other orbs in space and the time required 
to reach them as calculated by some astronomers un¬ 
der the so-called light-year estimates, have attracted 


92 


SPEED OF LIGHT 


the attention of some clergymen relative to another 
Biblical statement, and have induced the inquiry as 
to the possibility of any such actual departure from 
the earth and arrival elsewhere. Consider, in this 
connection, the words of Jesus Christ when He was 
on the Cross: “Today shalt thou be with me in 
Paradise.” 

It appears that a certain class of astronomers claim 
that the speed of light is about 186,000 miles a second, 
that it travels in the form of ether waves, that each 
wave, after it leaves the surface of its source becomes 
detached from and independent of its source. When 
the ether wave strikes the retina of the eye it pro¬ 
duces the sensation that we call light. Now, if a star 
is two hundred light-years distant, the light-wave that 
is now entering our eyes left the star two hundred 
years ago, and if that star should be extinguished to¬ 
day it would be two hundred years before we would be 
aware of the fact, for it would be that long before 
the last of the ether-waves now en route from the star 
would enter our eyes.” Isabel M. Lewis, of the United 
States Naval Observatory, Boston Transcript, Octo¬ 
ber 27, 1923. Also letters to author dated November 
and December, 1923. 

Another school of astronomers and scientists admit 


93 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


that: “For a long time we have believed that light is 
a wave-motion of some hypothetical thing called ether. 
This theory never was satisfactory; it was not reason¬ 
able. Finally the belief in an ether had to be aban¬ 
doned. The radio waves and light waves are electro¬ 
magnetic waves, that is, periodic variations of the 
electro-magnetic field in space.” Charles P. Stein- 
metz, quoted by Professor Larkin, who added—“Not 
waves, only variations.” Boston Advertiser, Decem¬ 
ber 18, 1922. 

Other experts reject both the aforesaid theories be¬ 
cause these take for granted the orbital course of the 
earth around the sun, while these last scholars deny 
that there is such a course and consequently reject the 
speed of light factor as essential to the problem. 

Thus it appears these three classes of astronomers 
and students (all globularists) conspicuously dis¬ 
agree, and disclose the fact that the speed of light 
problem is a very unsettled one, even among them¬ 
selves. In view of this radical difference of opinion, 
it seems only fair to enquire which theory is correct, 
or are any of the theories correct ? 

Many persons, however, mistakenly believe that the 
speed of light problem has been satisfactorily settled 
beyond a doubt, depending upon “taken for granted” 


94 


SPEED OF LIGHT 


as their reliance for acceptance. Other investigators 
have quite different ideas on the subject of the pro¬ 
jection of light, and their conclusions render the con¬ 
tradictions and uncertainties of the aforesaid globu- 
larists more conspicuous than ever. 

Observe the light from a match, candle, an electric 
bulb, lantern, lighthouse, or searchlight, illuminate 
radially or in stream-line. The rays of light are pro¬ 
jected and diffused for a limited distance only. This 
distance may, to a certain extent, be increased by in¬ 
creasing the power or size of the source of light. A 
lighted lantern in a field spreads its light rays only a 
very little distance, yet its light may be visible to an 
observer a mile or more distant, barring obstructions 
and the atmosphere permitting. The headlights of 
an automobile project their rays of light a compara¬ 
tively few feet, but the distance may, to a certain 
extent, be increased by increasing the illuminating 
power or changing the lenses. Yet automobile head¬ 
lights, headlights of locomotives and signal lights are 
visible to an observer several miles distant. A light 
that is receding from an observer is followed by 
the retina of the observer’s eye with more or less 
strain, and can be followed further and more easily 
with the aid of a glass; showing that instead of the 


95 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


light approaching the eye, it is the retina of the eye 
that follows the light. But if the receding light 
changed its course and approached in the direction of 
the observer, there would be a corresponding lessening 
of strain on the retina as the visibility of the light in¬ 
creased and the distance between the light and the 
observer decreased. 

If light carried on and on independent of its source, 
whether the source was extinguished or not, as some 
globularists claim, then it would appear to be un¬ 
necessary to increase the power of the lighting device 
of a lighthouse, as a device of ordinary power would 
be sufficient for all purposes. In many instances, 
however, the power of the illuminating device has to 
be increased to overcome distance. 

It is furthermore evident that it is the control of 
the source of light which controls its dimness or in¬ 
tensity, its fluctuations and its extinguishment. This 
is true, of course, allowing for atmospheric conditions. 
Similar conditions and principles apply to all lumina¬ 
ries and sources of light whether celestial or terres¬ 
trial. And instead of this light question being an ab¬ 
struse problem beyond the comprehension of the lay¬ 
man, it resolves itself into a much simpler matter than 
many scientists would have us believe. 


96 


X 


Curvature 

According to advocates of the globular theory, the 
curvature of the earth amounts to about eight inches 
to a square mile. This curvature interposes to pre¬ 
vent, partially or entirely, the view of objects at a 
distance, consequently it is necessary toi ascertain 
whether or not this estimate for curvature applies 


correctly. The following calculations are based on 


the globular 

calculation of curvature. 




First 

mile 



8 inches 

Second 

<< 



32 

tt 

Third 


6 

feet 



Fourth 

<( 

10 

“ 

8 

“ 

Fifth 

tt 

16 

tt 

8 

tt 

Sixth 

a 

24 

“ 



Seventh 

*t 

32 

tt 

8 

a 

Eighth 

tt 

42 

tt 

8 

tt 

Ninth 

tt 

54 




Tenth 

tt 

66 

“ 

8 

tt 

Eleventh 

tt 

80 

tt 

8 

tt 

Twelfth 

tt 

96 

a 




97 




HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Thirteenth Mile 

112 

feet 

8 

inches 

Fourteenth 

130 

(t 

8 

“ 

Fifteenth 

150 




Sixteenth 

170 


8 

M 

Seventeenth 

194 

a 

8 

U 

Eighteenth 

216 

tt 

8 


Nineteenth 

240 

u 

“ 

Twentieth 

266 


8 

U 

Refraction was ignored 

in making these 

calculations 


but according to the expert’s allowance for refraction 
requires a reduction of about one seventh; for in¬ 
stance, the sixth mile estimate of twenty-four feet, 
would be reduced to about twenty feet, six inches. 
Refraction, however, as a factor applicable to the 
globular form exclusively, is much disputed, for 
when it is applied it does not consistently or satisfac¬ 
torily overcome the difficulties that globularists anx¬ 
iously desire to overcome in order to meet and defeat 
the arguments of the flat earthians. The proofs of 
the latter group, however, remain valid, for objects are 
visible at distances and heights all out of proportion 
to curvature estimates even when allowance for re¬ 
fraction has been made. Such conspicuous inconsist¬ 
encies seriously damage the curvature claim. 

Abrupt drops or dips from mile to mile are con- 


98 



CURVATURE 


spicuous in estimates of curvature. Of course a ship 
could not appear or disappear as gradually as it 
actually does if such estimates in feet were deducted 
from the height of the hull from the water-line to rail. 
If such a deduction were made it would leave very 
little, if any, of some hulls visible, even at relatively 
short distances. For instance, consider a distance of 
six miles with a drop of over twenty feet; how much 
of a hull would be visible, if that drop interposed to 
hide from view a hull twenty feet above the water, as¬ 
suming the observer to be at sea level at the water's 
edge ? Some towboats would be entirely or nearly out 
of sight at such a distance. The fact is, that for quite 
a number of miles, there is no appreciable reduction in 
the visibility of the hull at each mile,—not a particle 
of difference between the third and sixth miles, al¬ 
though according to the calculations of curvature the 
drop would be the difference between six feet and 
twenty-four feet. This again exposes the fallacy of 
the curvature claim for our earth. 

This alleged curvature, with or without refraction, 
was tested by an actual course, lighthouse and ob¬ 
servatory, through a problem in curvature submitted 
by me to twenty eminent globularists of Canada, 
England and the United States representing some of 


99 



HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


the most famous institutions of those countries; and 
not one correct answer was received. Furthermore, 
the opinions and estimates were so conflicting, some 
so ridiculous, that one authority subsequently admitted 
that “such difference of opinions by such eminent men 
is proof enough that such questions are very far from 
being settled.” 

The aforesaid problem also revealed how mistaken 
many of those experts were relative to propositions 
concerning the horizon, altitude, distance and visibility. 
Such mistakes at once invalidate the curvature and 
refraction factors, and also condemn the methods 
employed by globularists in their attempts to prove 
the rotundity of the earth. 

Those twenty experts failed completely because their 
curvature estimates obliged them to believe that the 
horizon was much nearer to the observer than it actu¬ 
ally is. All of them claimed that the horizon was in 
front of the lighthouse (the object under observation) 
whereas the lighthouse is actually in front of the 
horizon. Their estimates of the distance of the 
horizon from the observer placed it from ten to fif¬ 
teen miles nearer than it actually is, and their estimates 
as to the visibility of the lighthouse varied proportion¬ 
ately. Nothing was correct. 


100 


CURVATURE 


If curvature actually exists, a ship receding from 
view would vanish long before it could reach a dis¬ 
tance that would reduce it to a speck. It would vanish 
at a distance so short that it would be large and dis¬ 
tinctly visible just prior to the last abrupt drop that 
would hide it from view. The horizon factor is a 
most important one in navigation, and such experts 
as those to whom the lighthouse problem was submit¬ 
ted are of the class of those who make the estimates 
and tables for navigation purposes. It is absolutely 
necessary, therefore, that these authorities have a 
correct method and basis of calculation. Just such an 
error of ten to fifteen miles in their navigation charts 
as these experts made in their solutions of the problem, 
resulted in such havoc as disclosed by Wilkes, Lecky, 
Middleton, Stackhouse and J. von Gumpach, and the 
voyages of the George Washington and Northern 
Pacific steamships referred to before. 

All these errors can be traced directly back to 
Magellan’s famous voyage, which has caused such 
consequent confusion. What a scoop that sailor, Ma¬ 
gellan, made! Too bad that he cannot return and learn 
what a mess he unwittingly created by his voyage. 
How persistently that other eleven to eighteen miles 


101 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


mistake in computation bobs up, muddling the course 
of astronomer, navigator, and clergyman. 

For centuries prior to the Magellan Voyage and 
even after Columbus had made his voyages west¬ 
ward, the complete or partial disappearance of craft 
at sea or of objects at a distance was not ascribed to 
the alleged curvature of the earth (Ptolemaists ex¬ 
cepted), but to perspective. The Ptolemaists could 
not and did not convince others that curvature of the 
earth accounted for the disappearance of craft or other 
objects at the horizon, nor by the shadow on the moon 
at the time of a lunar eclipse, or by the rising or setting 
of the sun, moon or other orbs. Perspective was suffi¬ 
cient explanation and held until the Magellan Voyage 
wa? accomplished. But to the Roman Catholic Hier¬ 
archy, even the Magellan Voyage was not sufficient 
proof for curvature to supplant perspective until the 
year 1758, A. D., only about one hundred and sixty- 
six years ago. 


102 


XI 


Lunar Eclipses 

Lunar eclipse is another factor that has persuaded 
many persons in favor of the solution offered by ad¬ 
vocates of the globular theory, who claim that the 
shadow on the moon at the time of a lunar eclipse is 
caused by the position of the earth between the moon 
and the sun. The darkness on the moon is the earth’s 
shadow when the earth, moon and sun are in line with 
one another. And because the shadow so cast is 
round, then the earth itself must be round to have 
cast such a shadow. 

Another reason alleged by some experts, but not all, 
is the prediction of an eclipse in advance of its actual 
occurrence. Thus some persons think the experts must 
know and that this indicates that it is the globular 
form and theory that enables them to make their pre¬ 
dictions. 

The following questions seem pertinent to the solu¬ 
tion of the problem: Are the earth, moon and sun 
in a line with one another at the time of eclipse as 


103 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 

claimed? Is the earth between the moon and sun at 
the time of a lunar eclipse? Have there been any 
lunar eclipses when both the moon and sun have 
simultaneously been above the horizon and visible to 
the observer? To substantiate the claims of the 
globularists, the first two questions must be answered 
affirmatively and the third negatively. 

Records and publications show that certain admis¬ 
sions and confessions of eminent astronomers who ad¬ 
vocate the globular theory reveal the fact that the moon 
is to them the most inexplicable body in the solar sys¬ 
tem, although it is the nearest to the earth; their tables 
show serious disagreements of observation concerning 
it. Even at the present time there is much uncertainty 
as to the exact position of the moon in space, and 
various theories have so far failed to explain the seem¬ 
ingly erratic behavior of the moon. Such conditions 
reveal that, under the globular theory, ignorance con¬ 
cerning the moon is the rule rather than the exception. 
At the very beginning of the analysis of lunar eclipses 
and the acceptance or rejection of the globularists’ 
theory of the cause of the darkness on the moon at 
various times, blank ignorance as to the essential 
fundamentals confronts the advocates of the globular 
theory and has to be reckoned with. If their tables 


104 


LUNAR ECLIPSES 


and observations are so faulty and unsatisfactory to 
themselves, then their opponents are justified in re¬ 
jecting them. 

It is well known that at various times on certain 
sections of the earth in broad daylight both the moon 
and sun have been above the horizon, simultaneously 
visible to an observer; the last time this occurred was 
on October 16, 1921. At such times the earth, moon 
and sun were not in the line claimed by globularists 
and the earth could not have been between the moon 
and sun. Even at such times, if the earth casts any 
shadow at all, the shadow would not be cast on the 
moon but in quite the other direction. To overcome 
such adverse conditions the globularists resort to the 
theory of fairy-refraction, that under their manipula¬ 
tion can raise, lift up, advance, retard or pull down 
anything on the earth, above the earth, and even the 
earth itself. This may look plausible to some, even if 
not convincing to others. 

The eclipse of the moon on October 16, 1921, as 
previously referred to, caused great consternation 
among globularists, giving rise to such comments in 
various publications as—“Moon Off Its Course”— 
“Moon Arrived Ahead of Time”—“What’s the Mat¬ 
ter with the Moon?” and so forth. Such a tempest 


105 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


in a teapot—and yet the moon would not and could 
not proceed on any such course if it were not the 
natural and correct one for it. Such a state suggests 
the question,—What is the matter with the astrono¬ 
mers? 

According to the Boston Herald of February 26, 
1909, Professor Percival Lowell stated in Huntington 
Hall, Boston, that “there are dark bodies or orbs in 
space”; and according to the Boston American , Febru¬ 
ary 15, 1910, Professor G. P. Serviss stated that 
“there are invisible dark bodies in space.” In Astro¬ 
nomical Curiosities by J. E. Gore, it appears that Hirst 
and J. C. Russell, on October 21, 1878, saw an un¬ 
expected shadow on the moon; and E. S. Wiggin, 
Michigan, on May 16, 1884, claimed “a dark body 
passed over the sun and it could not have been the 
moon.” According to Lieutenant E. Middleton, of 
England, Captain Nilsen saw, on August 29, 1886, “a 
sudden (unexpected) eclipse of the sun, very nearly 
total.” 

Long before the globular theory was thought of, the 
ancients could predict lunar and solar eclipses quite 
accurately and without the aid of watches and clocks. 
The Chinese for a length of time extending over 3,858 
years were also able to predict eclipses in advance of 


106 


LUNAR ECLIPSES 


their occurrence. The Chaldean Saros could predict 
eclipses several centuries before Christ, and numerous 
authorities have claimed that “nothing could be more 
impertinent than the assertion of some writers that 
astronomical predictions arise from any modern 
theory. ,, 

Another globular form authority has admitted “that 
an examination of solar and lunar motions, reveals the 
absolute immobility of the earth.”—Professor O. M. 
Mitchell. 

According to G. F. Chambers, F. R. A. S. England, 
in his work, The Story of the Eclipses , 1899, the 
solution of the prediction of eclipses is substantially 
as follows: 

“Eclipses occur in almost, though not 
quite, the same regular order every 6585 1-3 
days, or more exactly eighteen years, ten 
days, seven hours and forty-two minutes; this 
assumes that five of these years are leap 
years. This is the celebrated Chaldean Saros 
and was used by the ancients. A more accu¬ 
rate succession will be obtained by combin¬ 
ing three Saros periods, making fifty-four 
years, thirty-one days; while best of all, to 
secure an almost perfect repetition of a series 
of eclipses will be a combination of forty- 


107 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


eight Saroses, or eight hundred and sixty- 
five years for the moon, and of about twenty 
Saroses, or more than 1,200 years for the 
sun. If there are five leap years in the 
eighteen years, the odd days will be ten; if 
four leap years, there will be eleven; if only 
three leap years, the odd days to be added 
will be twelve. We Westerns owe a great 
deal of our present knowledge in certain de¬ 
partments to the information stored up by 
Chinese observers during many centuries 
before and after the Christian Era, and their 
observations of comets may be singled out 
as having been of inestimable value to various 
nineteenth century computers, especially E. 
Biot and J. R. Hind.” 

“It has been known since remote antiquity that 
eclipses occur in cycles.” Encyclopedia Brit- 
annica, 11th Edition. 

Cycles and repetition determine the basis for 
the prediction of eclipses, and not the flat or globular 
form of the earth. Some eminent English authorities 
offer similar theories for the basis of the predictions 
of eclipses of both moon and sun. 


108 


XII 


Rivers 

There has been much discussion relative to the flow 
of the waters of the Mississippi River and whether or 
not its mouth or outlet is lower or higher than its 
source. A globular form of the earth induces such 
discussions and differences of opinion. Once more 
the globular form is on trial to ascertain whether the 
rivers of the earth can and do flow regardless of the 
peculiar conditions which such a form demands. The 
fact that there are such discussions and doubts among 
the globularists themselves, reveals the fact that the 
globular theory is surrounded with many questionable 
factors. 

I herewith submit for consideration some of 
the clashing opinions of certain authorities and advo¬ 
cates of the globular theory: 

“Downhill flow, mouth lower than source.” 

Scientific American, N.. Y.; U. S. Coast and 

Geodetic Survey, Washington; Principals of 

English High School, Boston, Mass. Stuy- 


109 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


vestant High School, New York City; Cen¬ 
tral High School, Pittsburgh, Penna.; East 
High School, Minneapolis, Minn., and Clark 
Brown, Civil Engineer, Albany, N. Y. 

‘‘Uphill flow, mouth higher than source.’* 
Central High School, Erie, Penna.; Austin 
High School, Chicago, Ill.; Edwin Tarrisse, 
Washington, in Sunday Magazine; Rev. L. A. 
Lambert, Buffalo, N. Y., in his work, Tactics of 
Infidels. 

D. M. Parry, astronomer, Indianapolis, 
Ind., claimed he “was not acquainted enough 
with the facts to hazard any judgment and 
thought the question a catch one.” 

Elbert Hubbard, East Aurora, N. Y., 
claimed it “was a good proposition but he 
would have to take a little time to Fletcher- 
ize on it before giving a reply.” He failed ever 
to make such a reply, however. 

Clark Brown, in replying, informed me 
that he had “submitted the problem to a 
number of college-trained men in the engi¬ 
neering profession and to a few teachers; all 
of them were aware of the difficulties relative 
to the problem, therefore all declined to 
answer it, admitting inability to do so.” 


110 


RIVERS 


Professor H. H. Turner, Oxford Univer¬ 
sity, England, claimed (by a sketch) “that in 
one sense the mouth is higher than the 
source. The force determining the flow of 
the water is gravity only (with, of course, 
the resistance of the river bed added) caus¬ 
ing it to flow downhill as regards A-G and 
uphill as regard A-C.” 


Some of these writers claimed that gravity was the 
controlling factor, some that centrifugal force was. 
One claimed that there could not be any flow by gravity. 
Others averred that if rotation ceased, the flow would 
be northward instead of southward, as at present 
time. Some advanced the “center of the earth” as a 
factor in the problem, and some claimed that it was 
not a factor. The opinion of Edwin Tarrisse ap¬ 
peared in an article by him in the Associated Sunday 
Magazines, Inc., September 13, 1908, Can Water 
Run Up Hill? He claimed that “the mouth of the 
Mississippi River is about three miles higher than the 
source,” and gave his reasons therefor. The Reverend 
L. A. Lambert previously cited claimed that anyone 
who claimed that the mouth of said river was lower 
than the source, “would be resorting to inane plati¬ 
tudes.” 


Ill 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


I have submitted only a few of the directly-ex¬ 
pressed opinions on the subject; there were many 
evasions. The globular theory forces these authorities 
to assume such positions and make such evasions 
whether they like it or not. Even Robert G. Ingersoll 
was puzzled by the problem of the flow of various 
rivers upon a globe form and would not accept some 
solutions offered as true. 

Various globularists have likened the earth in shape 
to an orange or sphere, an egg, a pear or an oblate 
spheroid. Assuming the earth is a sphere relative to 
the flow of the Mississippi River, then the analysis 
would show that the mouth or outlet of the river 
would be lower than its source. Thus the flow would 
be downward and not upward, because a sphere is 
equal all over its surface by the sea level datum line 
from the poles to the equator and from the equator to 
the poles. Thus, in going in any or all directions, the 
labor is equal. The source of the river being elevated 
above the entire datum line determines that the mouth 
or outlet is lower than the source, so far as a perfect 
sphere is concerned. But if this is true, the sphere 
must not rotate, as rotation would influence the flow 
and change the form of the earth, bulging it at the 
equator and flattening it toward the poles. But the 


112 


RIVERS 


sphere-form is not acceptable to those who insist upon 
rotation movement, and rotation brings in the prob¬ 
lem of centrifugal force, demanding an oblate spheroid 
earth-form with the equatorial diameter about twenty- 
six miles greater than the polar diameter. This ren¬ 
ders the datum line surface of the earth unequal, as 
from the poles to the peak of the bulge at the equator 
is an ascending line while from the equator to the 
poles is a descending line. The datum line is made 
unequal by the bulge at the equator. On a globular 
form there is no change in distance from the outside 
datum line surface to its interior center, but the dis¬ 
tance from the outside datum line surface of an oblate 
spheroid to its interior center varies from poles toward 
equator and from the equator toward the poles. This 
variation indicates that an increase in labor is re¬ 
quired in going towards the equator and less labor re¬ 
quired in going away from the equator. Thus proc¬ 
esses toward the equator are ascending and away 
from the equator are descending. 

Some globularists claim that the distance from the 
North Geographical Pole to the equator is about 6224 
miles, and the length of flow of the Mississippi River 
from source to mouth is about one-quarter of that 
distance as the crow flies. The semi-diameter of the 


113 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


earth is about thirteen miles more at the equator on ac¬ 
count of the bulge, and a certain proportion of that 
variation applies to the Mississippi River; the propor¬ 
tion being about one-fourth of thirteen miles or about 
three and a quarter miles. Allowance must also be 
made for the elevation (in feet) of the source of the 
river above the sea level datum line; the deduction of 
this elevation for the proportional allowance for bulge 
shows that this elevation of the river’s source is far 
from being sufficient to overcome that three and a 
quarter miles handicap. Results show that after due 
allowance, the mouth of the river is higher than the 

source, and the flow of the waters is an ascending 

process. To ascend against this three and a quarter 
mile handicap and overcome it, the claim is made by 
some, especially by Tarrisse and Lambert previously 
referred to, that it is the centrifugal force caused by 

the rotation of the earth which drives the waters of 

the river up to its mouth and outlet. 

The assumption that the earth is egg-shaped or pear- 
shaped gives rise to numerous additional difficulties 
to the globular : sts. It induces contradictions and an¬ 
tagonism among them, and upsets all preconceived 
notions of latitude, longitude and distance, and the 
theory of the law of flow of rivers. 


114 


RIVERS 


The assumption of the oblate spheroid form with 
the feature of equatorial bulging and variation at the 
poles, works one way with the Mississippi River flow¬ 
ing away from the North Geographical Pole toward 
the equator, and quite another way with the Nile 
River, that flows away from the South Geographical 
Pole and toward the equator, then over the equator 
and then away from the equator toward the North 
Geographical Pole. If an ascending course is main¬ 
tained by the Mississippi River with the mouth higher 
than the source, then for a short distance the Nile 
River ascends to the equator and descends the balance 
of its length, and its mouth is therefore lower than its 
source. It would appear, therefore, that the Missis¬ 
sippi River is controlled by rotation and centrifugal 
force, but the Nile River gets along very nicely with¬ 
out such assistance. One flows up, the other down. 
An example of complete conspicuous contradiction 
produced by the exigencies of an oblate spheroid form 
which is also productive of other contradictions. For 
some rivers flow from north to south and south to 
north, some flow from east to west and west to east, 
and some flow in various directions. The following 
questions might pertinently be asked: Why do some 
rivers require rotary, centrifugal and centripetal as- 


115 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


sistance, while others do not? Why refer to the 
mouth of the Mississippi River as the Lower Missis¬ 
sippi, if it is in fact the Upper? Where does the quo¬ 
tation, “A river never rises above its source” fit in 
with the requirements of an oblate spheroid form ? 

With all the absurdities and inconsistencies that in¬ 
sistence upon a globular form forces its advocates to 
accept, it is not surprising that from the chaos created 
thereby it is necessary to have at least four different 
schools of scientists, all advocating the globular theory 
and supporting it with various alleged proofs. 

The fact is that the law of the flow of rivers abso¬ 
lutely precludes the possibility of adjustment and 
manipulation to which they are submitted by various 
globular earth advocates to support their conflicting 
theories. Descent, declivity, depth, width, volume, 
speed and course are the controlling factors and all 
these tally with the plane earth theory and the laws of 
Biblical cosmogony without conflict. 

I am fully acquainted with the evasions resorted to 
by globularists in their attempts to evade a definition 
of a level, horizontal, or datum line. They variously 
describe it as “A line tangent to the surface of the 
earth,” and “corrected at various or successive points.” 

Such hedging is not necessary if the tangent factor 


116 


RIVERS 


controls. As it is, both these factors conflict, and do 
not work out even with house plans on either flat or 
sloping land. Calculations on a flat form control, and 
such plans reveal at a glance what constitutes level, 
horizontal, straight, vertical and zenith in contradic¬ 
tion to what constitutes curvature. This 4 'tangent’* 
and "correction” excuse is in the same class with the 
"refraction” excuse. 


117 


XIII 


The Protestant Clergy 

In regard to astronomy and cosmogony, clergymen 
have such diverse opinions that reference to their be¬ 
lief or disbelief obliges classification to reveal the con¬ 
flicting views held by the respective groups. 

Some scientists and their supporters boast of the 
victories they have won over the church and clergy in 
the conflict between religion and science. Some 
clergymen even join with scientists in magnifying that 
boast and at the same time belittle the efforts of the 
losers. One group of clergymen is not at all interested 
in investigations of astronomy and cosmogony or 
questions as to whether the earth is of a globular or 
of a flat form. These men do not believe that these 
are matters in which religion and the clergy are con¬ 
cerned. 

Another group of clergymen actually become par¬ 
ticipants in the contest, evidently aware of some of 
the weapons of defense in their possession but igno¬ 
rant of other even more valuable weapons of offense 


118 


THE PROTESTANT CLERGY 


within their grasp. Ignoring such resources, they 
remain ignorant of the weakness of the weapons of 
the scientists and finally conclude that the scientists 
must know their own field. Reasoning thus they with¬ 
draw from the contest. Other clergymen are still in 
doubt, while others become actual allies of the scien¬ 
tists. Such a state of affairs permits the scientists to 
score another victory, though the actual facts of the 
case give very little, if any, genuine cause for such a 
boast. 

Still another group of clergymen are so situated in 
very satisfactory social and financial conditions that 
they are not at all interested in the subject. But if 
they have any intellectual bias, it is toward the views 
held by the scientists. The latter boast of this passive 
acquiescence as of a victory and magnify such a con¬ 
quest as though it were a triumph against doughty op¬ 
ponents. 

There is still another group of clergymen which 
attempts to “temporize” for the Bible, asserting that 
it does not claim to be a treatise on science and is en¬ 
tirely dissociated from scientific theory. Other 
clergymen claim that the Bible does indicate the earth 
as globular in form and cite Isaiah XL: 22, relying 
upon the term “circle” that appears in that verse. 


119 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


They claim that this justifies the scientists in their 
belief in the globular theory, and that it reveals to 
them that there is no conflict between Scripture and 
Science. 

Those clergymen who rely upon that word “circle” 
as indicating that the Bible teachings support a globu¬ 
lar earth-form show how easily they can be misled, 
how susceptible they are to error. It would be 
well to consider just here the definition and applica¬ 
tion of the term circle. 

Definitions of A Circle 

“A plane figure bounded by a curved line called 
its circumference, which is everywhere equally 
distant from a point within it, called the center.” 
Chambers Encyclopedia. Webster's Academic 
Dictionary. 

“A plane figure enclosed by one line, all the 
straight lines drawn to which from one point 
within the figure are equal to one another.” 
Euclid, Book Definition 15. 

“In Geometry, a plane figure bounded by a 
curved line which is everywhere equally distant 
from a point within called the center.” Apple¬ 
ton's New Practical Cyclopedia. Encyclopedia 


120 


THE PROTESTANT CLERGY 


Britannica, 11th ed. Vol. 2. Universal Cyclopedia 
and Atlas. 

“A closed plane curve exactly alike throughout, 
all of its points being equidistant from; a point 
within called the center.” Webster's New Inter¬ 
national Dictionary. 

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the 
earth.” Isaiah 40: 22. 

“To primitive man the earth was a flat disk. 
Of such a nature was the cosmogony of the Baby¬ 
lonians and Hebrews.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 
11th ed. Vol. 8. 

If the various standard dictionaries and encyclo¬ 
pedias count for anything, then such authorities cer¬ 
tainly contradict the contentions of those clergymen 
who do not believe that the term circle applies to a 
plane or flat surface. That Thomas Paine grasped 
this important error on the part of such clergymen is 
clearly indicated in his severe criticism of them when 
he declared, “The two beliefs—modern astronomy and 
the Bible—cannot be held together in the same mind; 
he who thinks he believes both has thought very little 
of either.” 

Another eminent authority supports the findings of 


121 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


the dictionaries and encyclopedias in this matter. Pro¬ 
fessor Edward W. Maunder, of the Royal Observatory, 
Greenwich, England, published a work entitled Bible 
Astronomy, and in that work devoted one chapter 
to an analysis of Joshua’s “Long Day”. In it he par¬ 
ticularly noted the use of the term “circle” and the 
passage at Isaiah 40: 22. He declared that “nowhere 
in the Bible is there any allusion to the earth as of a 
spherical form.” In the preface of his work, Profes¬ 
sor Maunder declared himself an astronomer and a 
Christian, and the combination qualifies him accord¬ 
ingly. 

In view of the evidence of these authorities there 
are sufficient grounds for the belief that many clergy¬ 
men have been duped by both the findings of the 
Magellan voyage and the alleged Scriptural basis for 
their beliefs. 

Furthermore, it appears from these various author¬ 
ities, that the period of time covered when the term 
“circle” was applied, includes centuries, B.C. and A.D. 

Some clergymen contend that Moses and those 
“other old fellows” knew nothing about astronomy, 
cosmogony and science; but these were conclusively 
answered by 1 Thessalonians, 2: 13—“When ye re¬ 
ceived the word of God—ye received it not as the word 


122 


THE PROTESTANT CLERGY 


of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” And 
Job, 38: 22 and 23—“Hast thou entered into the 
treasures of the snow ? Or hast thou seen the treasures 
of the hail, which I have reserved against the time of 
trouble, against the day of battle and war?” 

According to the evidence of Mr. Lyell Rader, one 
of the greatest chemists of the United States, in the 
Boston Sunday Post, January 9, 1921, the Bible gave 
the secret of how to make perfect the explosive T. N. 
T. Its original imperfection, due to a tiny bit of im¬ 
purity, had resulted in the terrible Black Tom disaster 
of July 30, 1916, and the Halifax disaster of Decem¬ 
ber 6, 1917. Notwithstanding the passage of many 
centuries since the composition of the Bible, the science 
in the 38th chapter, 22-23 verses of the Book of Job, 
was there and not discovered and applied until after 
1917. Rather slow r work for moderns in comparison 
with the accomplishments of those unscientific “old 
fellows” of Bible times. 

Professor E. W. Maunder, in his work previously 
referred to, substantially asserts that “The facts that 
are stated in the first chapter of Genesis must neces¬ 
sarily have been revealed, as man himself could not 
have found them out by any process of research.” 
According to Professor Maunder, a globe earth au- 


123 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


thority, it is evident that Moses and some of those 
other so-called “old fellows” were especially favored 
beyond the advocates of modern astronomy and cos¬ 
mogony. The verse from Thessalonians, quoted 
above, should be recalled again in this connection. 

Some clergymen and laymen consider that the Bible 
statement, “hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26: 
7), indicates that the earth is of a globular form sus¬ 
pended in space. But “hangeth the earth upon nothing” 
decidedly refutes the Copernican-Newtonian theory 
which claims that the earth is held by the sun and can¬ 
not escape from it; that the sun holds our earth to its 
orbital course around itself, and at the same time to 
another course in relation to Vega. This theory also 
pictures what would happen to our earth if perchance 
the sun should let go its grip on the earth. In view 
of the alleged grip of the sun on the earth, where does 
“hangeth upon nothing” fit in with the globular theory? 
Is the sun that specified “nothing”? 

Professor Edwin Tenney Brewster, of Phillips 
Andover Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, author 
of The Understanding of Religion, wrote me, under 
date of July 2, 1923, as follows: 

“I think you will find the most significant point 

in my book the frank admission that the Bible 


124 


THE PROTESTANT CLERGY 


teaches that the earth is flat. I don’t hold that 
view myself—but there isn’t any doubt that the 
Bible does. All modern scholars I find are agreed 
on that. I’m sure it’s held much more widely than 
we ‘globularists’ have any idea.” And again un¬ 
der date of August 14, 1923—“By the way, you 
allude, apparently, to ‘thousands’ of believers in 
a flat earth. I wonder if you have any data. I 
happen to be especially interested in the number 
of flat-earthians. ‘Tens of thousands’ is nearer 
my estimate.” 


125 


XIV 


Evolution 

According to various recognized authorities preach¬ 
ing and advocating the theory of evolution, the basis 
thereof appears to have been derived from the state¬ 
ments set forth in two papers read before the Linnaean 
Society at London, on July 1, 1858. One paper was 
presented by Charles R. Darwin, the other by Alfred 
Russel Wallace. Both based their deductions and 
conclusions on the theories of Copernicus, Kepler, 
Galileo, Descartes and Newton, all of which were in 
turn based upon the result of the Magellan voyage, 
1519 to 1521. This voyage, which is the generally 
accepted basis of the globular theory and the doctrine 
of the antipodes, is thus also responsible for the theory 
of evolution, for various astronomers and scientists 
accepted the Magellan voyage as a demonstrated cir¬ 
cumnavigation of the earth. And it is asserted that 
such a voyage could only possibly be made on a 
globular form; that the earth, therefore, must be 
globular and there must be an antipodes. 


126 


EVOLUTION 


These astronomers and scientists fully believed that 
a ship could sail a circular, or an irregularly circular 
course around a central point, crossing every meridian 
of longitude on a globular form, and that such a feat 
would be utterly impossible on a flat surface. 

Consider what an inexcusably stupid conclusion this 
is for intellectual men to hold. One might just as well 
claim that a man cannot go around his house and re¬ 
turn to the same spot he started from because his 
land is flat. The two special chapters relative to cir¬ 
cumnavigation contain sufficient evidence to completely 
refute all the arguments based on the alleged findings 
of the Magellan voyage on this matter. 

When Wallace presented his paper before the Lin- 
naean Society, in 1858, he then held certain astronom¬ 
ical beliefs relative to worlds and the position and 
purposes of the sun. But after further study and 
consideration, he repudiated some of his former con¬ 
tentions and advanced his new theory, which startled 
some scientists but favorably impressed others. He 
claimed the earth occupied the central position and 
not the sun, and that the earth was the only inhabited 
planet and the sun and all the other orbs were con¬ 
tributory to the earth. That the whole of the available 
past life of the sun has been utilized for life develop- 


127 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


ment on the earth, and the earth has been especially 
favored by these cosmic arrangements. Thus, so far 
as he is accepted as a globularist, his new theory, which 
places the earth at the center of our universe, disposes 
of the alleged orbital course of the earth around the 
sun. It also disposes of the alleged aphelion and peri¬ 
helion positions of the earth, and the extra three mil¬ 
lion or more miles distance of sun from the earth at 
certain times. It upsets the globularists’ conception 
of the shape, length and width of such an alleged or¬ 
bital course, from which is derived the basis for esti¬ 
mating the alleged speed of light in connection with 
Jupiter’s moons. It upsets all their pre-conceived 
notions as to distance and size of the sun and of the 
other orbs in space, and disposes of the alleged course 
of the earth toward Vega. What induced Wallace 
to make such radical changes in his former beliefs? 

To a certain extent Wallace is supported by Pro¬ 
fessor William Bateson, world famous English biolo¬ 
gist, who assailed Darwin’s Origin of the Species 
at the convention of the American Association for Ad¬ 
vancement of Science at Toronto, Ontario, December 
29, 1921, where he made, in effect, the following ad¬ 
mission: 


128 


EVOLUTION 


“Forty years ago the Darwinian theory was ac¬ 
cepted without question; today scientists have 
come to a point where they are unable to offer 
any explanation of the genesis of species/’ 

Wallace receives some support from another source 
by the sweeping declaration from one of the most 
famous institutions in the United States. The state¬ 
ment is substantially as follows: 

“You no doubt know that the latest results 
of Physics seem to show that it is impossible to 
detect such motion—no man knows, and we have 
no evidence to decide, whether the earth is moving 
through space or not; witness the conflicting 
theories of navigation.” June 9, 1922. 

In addition to the evidence of these reputable au¬ 
thorities, there are three other schools of astronomers 
and scientists advocating the globular theory, all three 
denying the orbital course of the earth around the 
sun and all the factors dependent upon that course, 
including the movement of the earth relative to Vega. 
Some of those authorities reject the theory of rota¬ 
tion and tipping of the earth, and all of them claim 
that the Copernican-Newtonian System cannot account 


129 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


for the phenomena of day, night, seasons and lunar 
and solar eclipses. 

Opponents of the sacred writings are, as a matter 
of necessity, obliged to produce something as a sub¬ 
stitute to replace the claims of those portions of the 
Bible they are attacking. They seem to have selected 
Genesis, the first Book, as their principal target, and 
having discredited it, the balance of the Bible is more 
easily discredited and rejected. 

The evolutionary theory was selected as the most 
plausible substitute for Biblical teaching. Its choice 
seems to have satisfied many laymen and some clergy¬ 
men, and many clergymen have been induced thereby 
to abandon the ministry, and even abandon religion. 

The ideas of natural selection and the survival of 
the fittest, resultant destructive philosophies which 
grew out of the evolutionary theory, and which 
reached a climax in the doctrine of the superman, the 
supreme product of evolution, were particularly al¬ 
luded to as false philosophy by Professor Paulsen in 
System of Ethics; by William Archer in Fighting a 
Philosophy; by Owen Wister in A Pentecost of 
Calamity; the boast of Gerhardt Hauptmann relative 
to Nietzsche’s Zarathustra; and by R. H. Bevan in 


130 


EVOLUTION 


Germany's Moral Insanity. Leslie's, December 14, 
1918. 

Unfortunately, it appears that the opponents of evo¬ 
lution attempt to show how ridiculous it is, but this 
method is not sufficient. It should be attacked at its 
very foundations. 


131 


XV 


Comparisons 

Robert G. Ingersoll publicly invited comparison of 
the accomplishments of Laplace, Humboldt, Kepler, 
Copernicus and other men of the so-called modern 
times with those of Joshua, Moses, Job, Isaiah and 
other men of Bible times. Professor Andrew D. 
White invited similar comparison between the two 
groups, and both Ingersoll and White favored the 
former. Those invitations were, to all intents and 
purposes, challenges. It is only necessary, therefore, 
to ascertain whether the alleged superior accomplish¬ 
ments of the former group have been such as to 
really merit the confidence of Ingersoll and White. 
Certainly, globularists cannot reasonably complain if 
the alleged accomplishments of Copernicus, et al, are 
analyzed and their values, if any, scrutinized by 
eminent globe-earth experts and authorities. 

It is generally understood that various nations have 
enjoyed peculiar advantages and opportunities. Suc¬ 
ceeding generations learn from preceding generations, 


132 


COMPARISONS 


inheriting from the accumulated wisdom of the past. 
Therefore, with increasing populations there are in¬ 
creasing needs and opportunities for advancement, 
and it is quite consistent that such factors should be 
considered in comparisons relative to the men and 
times concerned in the challenges issued by Ingersoll 
and White. 

We must also consider that the lives and accom¬ 
plishments of Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, 
Galileo, Laplace and Humboldt, are practically an open 
book in comparison with the lives and accomplishments 
of Moses, Job, Joshua and Isaiah and other men of 
the Bible. Even at this late date facts concerning 
them are only being gradually learned through excava¬ 
tions and research, revealing the marvelous knowledge 
and accomplishments of the men of those remote cen¬ 
turies. The Lost Arts, to which unprejudiced writers 
occasionally refer in terms of respect, must not be 
forgotten in this relation. 

Copernicus 

Nicholaus Copernicus was born February 19, 1473, 
and died May 24, 1543. His chief claim to fame is 
based on his work, On the Revolutions of the Heav- 


133 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


enly Bodies. Copernicus was dissatisfied with the 
findings of the Ptolemaic System, another globular 
theory, and is credited with exploding it. He gives 
the Pythagoreans credit for having given him the first 
hint. Pythagoras was a Greek philosopher, living in 
the sixth century B. C., but, although he conceived of 
the earth as a globe, he did not assume that the sun 
occupied the central position. Copernicus has been 
credited with the following admission: 

“Neither let anyone so far as hypotheses are 
concerned, expect anything certain from astron¬ 
omy, since that science can afford nothing of the 
kind.” S 

The Inquisition ruled that Copernicanism was a 
forbidden doctrine and condemned it in 1616. Two 
edicts of 1620 and 1633 restrained Roman Catholics 
from embracing Copernican views, and this restraint 
remained in full force for one hundred years and in 
nominal force for a hundred years longer. The con¬ 
demnatory decree was removed from the Index in 
1758, under Benedict XIV. 

Dr. Paley observed that the Copernican System was 
one guess among many. 


134 


COMPARISONS 


The great Bacon ridiculed the Copernican idea of 
motion of the earth. 

Goethe declared— 

“In whatever way or manner may have oc¬ 
curred this business, I must still say that I curse 
this modern theory of cosmogony, and hope that, 
perchance, there may appear in due time some 
young scientist of genius who will pick up cour¬ 
age enough to upset this universally disseminated 
delirium of lunatics.” 


Galileo 

Galileo Galilei, commonly called Galileo, was born 
February 15, 1564, and died January 8, 1642. He 
made great improvements in the telescope, and on 
January 7, 1610, he discovered four satellites of 
Jupiter by means of his improved instrument. The 
first telescope was made by Johannes Lippershey, 
an obscure optician of Middleburg, October 2, 1608. 
Galileo established mechanics as a science, and dis¬ 
covered the spots on the sun. He treated with scorn 
Kepler’s suggestion of the occult attraction of the 
moon. His capital errors are his theory of the tides 
and the nature of comets. At six audiences with Pope 


135 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Urban VIII, Galileo failed to convince the Pontiff 
of the truth of Copernicanism. The revolution which 
Galileo accomplished had been prepared by his pred¬ 
ecessors. 

Kepler 

Johann Kepler was born December 27, 1571, and 
died November 15, 1630. He propounded the three 
fundamental laws of planetary motion, viz., the laws 
of elliptical orbits, of equal areas, and of the relation 
between periods and distances. Tycho Brahe’s re¬ 
searches made possible Kepler’s discovery of these 
three laws. Kepler did not regard the stars as so 
many suns, and he divested the Copernican System 
of its absurdities and completed the Rudolphinian 
Tables which had been left uncompleted by the death 
of Tycho Brahe. Kepler’s biographers have published 
that, out of four of his suppositions, three are now in¬ 
disputably known to be false. 

Descartes 

Rene Descartes was born March 31, 1596, and died 
February 11, 1650. He is principally famous for his 
theory of vortices, known as the Cartesian Philosophy. 


136 


COMPARISONS 


In England his philosophy made only a slight im¬ 
pression. In Germany and Switzerland it took no 
root. Of Cartesianism towards the close of the 17th 
century the only remnant was an overgrown theory 
of vortices which received its death-blow from Newton 
and a witty executioner in Locke. A Latin abridge¬ 
ment of philosophy dated 1784 A. D. tells us that “the 
innate ideas of Descartes are founded on no arguments 
and are now universally abandoned. Its theories, 
taught as ascertained and verified truths, were as 
worthless as the systematic verbiage which preceded 
them.” 

Such is the report of the Encyclopedia Britannica on 
Descartes, the man whom Professor White extolled as 
one of the five greatest men that our race has pro¬ 
duced in the refutation of sacred writings. But it 
now appears that the Cartesian Philosophy was anni¬ 
hilated and not the sacred writings, and White’s judg¬ 
ment suffers accordingly. 

Newton 

Isaac Newton was born December 25, 1642, and 
died March 20, 1727. His most important work is 
Principia; the whole work was published in 1687. 
His thoughts were directed towards the problem of 


137 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


gravitation in 1666. He was inspired by Descartes* 
Geometry and he calculated from Kepler’s laws. He 
also sought information from John Flamsteed and en¬ 
gaged in unpleasant controversy with Wren and 
Hooke, especially Hooke, as to priority claims relative 
to some features of the gravitation theory. Voltaire 
is the authority for the well-known anecdote about the 
apple, having received the information from Newton’s 
favorite niece, Catherine Barton; how much truth 
there is in it can never be known. Other alleged dis¬ 
coveries and accomplishments have been credited to 
Newton. 

John Wood in his work on astronomy and cos¬ 
mogony published the following: 

“Newton’s law of gravitation has been scien¬ 
tifically assailed by the eminent Encke and 
others.” 

Professor John R. Young published the following: 

“Newton in his Principia, Book III, admitted, 

‘I by no means affirm that gravity is essential to 
bodies.* ** 

Professor Bernstein in Letters to the British Asso¬ 
ciation, referred to gravitation as follows: 


138 


COMPARISONS 


“The theory that motions are produced through 
material attraction is absurd. Attributing such a 
power to mere matter, which is passive by nature, 
is a supreme illusion . . . . it is a lovely and easy 
theory to satisfy any man’s mind, but when the 
practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and be¬ 
comes one of the most ridiculous theories to 
common sense and judgment.” 

Laplace 

Pierre Simon Laplace was born March 28, 1749, 
and died March 5, 1827. His chief claim to fame is 
his work, Mecanique Celeste, which ranks second only 
to the work Principia by Newton. Other of his works 
are Systeme du Monde and Essai Philosophique. La¬ 
place’s nebular hypothesis is well known to astronom¬ 
ers but rejected by many. Between Laplace and 
Legendre there was a feeling of more than coldness 
owing to Laplace’s appropriation, with scant ac¬ 
knowledgment, of the fruits of the other’s labors. 
Laplace has been justly blamed for not recognizing 
the unquestionable contributions of his predecessors 
and contemporaries, inferentially appropriating them 
as his own. 

Alexander Brownlie in the American Geographical 


139 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Society's Bulletins for February and April, 1902, dis¬ 
cussing tides, asserted that: 

“Both the theories of Newton and Laplace must 
be abandoned as explanations of the true condi¬ 
tions/' 

Professor T. J. J. See, United States Navy Mare 
Island Observatory, on January 30, 1909, announced 
to the Astronomical Society of the Pacific his rejection 
of Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis. Professor See is 
the author of many scientific papers published in the 
transactions of the learned societies of the United 
States and Europe. 

Humboldt 

Friedrich Heinrich Alexander Humboldt was born 
September 14, 1769 A. D., and died May 6, 1859 A. D. 

A traveler in the interests of science, his chief claim 
to fame is his work The Kosmos. He is practically 
the founder of the modern science of physical geo¬ 
graphy and placed meteorology on a firm basis. He 
owed much of what he accomplished to his rare power 
of assimilating the thoughts and availing himself of 
the contributions of others. He has been credited 
with the following statement: 


140 


COMPARISONS 


“I have known for a long time that we have no 
argument for the Copernican system, but shall 
never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush 
into the wasp’s nest; you will bring on yourself 
the scorn of the thoughtless multitudes. If once 
a famous astronomer arises against the present 
conception, I will, too, communicate my demon¬ 
strations, but to come forth as the first against 
opinions which the world has become fond of—I 
don’t feel the courage.” 

Summarized briefly, those seven men,—Copernicus, 
Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Laplace and Hum¬ 
boldt—have been credited with certain alleged accom¬ 
plishments. Ingersoll and White evidently regarded 
these accomplishments as genuine and permanently 
established beyond doubt or refutation. According 
to recognized authorities, those alleged accomplish¬ 
ments have not been established, but quite the reverse. 
Not only did those seven men disagree more or less 
among themselves and with their contemporaries, but 
subsequently other recognized authorities have assailed 
their theories and published their reasons for their 
objections and rejections. 

Those seven men based their findings upon the 
theory that the sun is immovable in space, whereas the 
subsequent claim is made that the sun is, in fact, rush- 


141 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


ing through space at the rate of eleven or twelve miles 
a second. That important fact warrants certain ob¬ 
jections and rejections, and all of such radical changes 
certainly tend to discredit the theories based upon the 
immobility of the sun, regarding which Ingersoll, 
White and Draper did not reasonably consider, evi¬ 
dently realizing that to do so would refute their own 
claims. 

Having considered this group of men and some of 
their accomplishments it is proper that the other group 
of men and some of their accomplishments should also* 
be considered for comparison, in order that both 
groups may be judged. 

As a group, various men of ancient times produced 
the Book of Books, the Bible—matchless and unan¬ 
swerable, perpetuated through the centuries down to 
the present day; furnishing material for the literature, 
comparisons and challenges of Ingersoll and White. 

“It has been the inspirer of morals, eloquence, 
art, poetry, politics, law, medicine, sanitation and 
hygiene. It is the book of books and the begetter 
of books.” Boston Globe. 

“It is a book which teaches us the first revolu¬ 
tions of the world, and which also foretells its 


142 


COMPARISONS 


last; it recounts them in the circumstantial lan¬ 
guage of history, it extols them in the sublimest 
strains of poetry, and it chants them in the charm 
of glowing song.” Southern Illustrated News, 
September 27, 1862. 

“Within the last twenty years, the Book of 
Genesis has come very prominently into view as 
the starting point of numerous discussions. 
Science and history have combined to lead us back 
to it. Here are the rudiments of all Scripture 
truth.” Horatio Bonar, D. D., in Earth's Morn¬ 
ing. 

“All the discoveries of modern times, such as 
electricity, telephone, telegraph, wireless tele¬ 
graphy and the steamship were foretold in the 
Bible.” Rev. Dr. MacArthur in his sermon in 
Tremont Temple yesterday, Boston Post, Septem¬ 
ber 9, 1912. 

“The accomplishments of the air men seemed a 
fulfilment of the prophecy of the New Testa¬ 
ment.” Rev. Dr. A. A. Berle, Boston Journal, 
September 5, 1910. 

“We are digging up things that astonish us. 
Ur of the Chaldees is no longer a fantasm; Ne¬ 
buchadnezzar becomes a reality; they all lived and 
they all did things. What our later knowledge 


143 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


has affirmed is, that long before the advent of 
Christianity the social, intellectual, artistic, com¬ 
munistic conditions of the race were developed 
along lines which today are regarded as funda¬ 
mental. Are we of the 20th Century going ahead, 
or are we trying to catch up with the men of fifty 
centuries ago?” Boston Sunday Post, March 10, 
1914. 

“Automatic vending machines, income taxes, 
running water through terra cotta pipes and ele¬ 
vators in Christ’s day.” Proved by Papyrus. 
Professor D. C. Stanwood, Boston Post, Febru¬ 
ary 20, 1923. 

“ A. man’s life consisteth not in the abundance 
of the things which he possesseth.’ St. Luke 
12: 15. 

“If the text above could be seen, read, and really 
understood by all the adults among the fifteen 
hundred million human beings on earth, the world 
would be better off. There is more wisdom in 
St. Luke’s fourteen words than in a hundred in¬ 
ternational treaties, for those fourteen words 
really mean Peace.” Boston Sunday Advertiser, 
December 25, 1921. 

“The Ten Commandments have not in more 
than three thousand years been improved upon. 
The Crucifixion, the most epochal event in human 


144 


COMPARISONS 


history, was described by Matthew with a pathos 
and force that have never been surpassed.” Bos¬ 
ton American. 

Moses 

Moses was born 1571 B. C. and died 1451 B. C. He 
is credited with being a peculiar treasure unto God 
above all people, especially favored by God, talking 
with God and delivering God’s message, the Ten 
Commandments at Sinai, to the people. Moses is 
credited with having written the Pentateuch, the first 
five Books of the Bible. He wrote of Jesus Christ 
about fifteen centuries before the birth of Christ and 
this fact was confirmed by Christ Himself as follows: 

“For had ye believed Moses ye would have be¬ 
lieved me, for he wrote of me; but if ye believe 
not his writings how shall ye believe my words?” 
St. John 5: 46-47. 

“And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of 
the Egyptians and was mighty in words and 
deeds.” Acts 7: 22. 

“A new angle is thus suggested from which to 
view the “momentous pronouncement” in the 
Mosaic cosmogony: 'Let there be light.’ Even 
these earliest students of the origin and structure 


145 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


of the universe recognized the overwhelming im¬ 
portance of light.” Professor G. P. Serviss, in 
Boston American of June 2, 1923, quoting Pro¬ 
fessor Shapley of Harvard Observatory, in Har¬ 
per’s Magazine. 

Consider that this “momentous pronouncement” by 
Moses occurred over thirty centuries before Coperni¬ 
cus, Laplace, Humboldt, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, 
Darwin, Wallace, Ingersoll, White, Serviss, and 
Shapley were born, and also that Moses has been par¬ 
ticularly quoted and referred to during all that time 
by both Ancients and Moderns, and above all, es¬ 
pecially by Jesus Christ. 

Joshua 

Joshua was born 1553 B. C. and died 1443 B. C. 
Joshua succeeded Moses. When Moses ascended Mt. 
Sinai, Joshua accompanied him part way, and was the 
first to accost him on his return. 

Joshua is most famously associated with the well 
known and much discussed “Joshua’s Long Day” when 
the sun stood still. See Joshua, tenth chapter. 


146 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Job 

“The Book of Job is full of suggestions of 
advanced thought and civilization. From almost 
every point of view it is a fascinating document 
as well as a monumental poem.” Mr. J. Ranken 
Towse of the New York Evening Post. Literary 
Digest, April 6, 1918. 

“Job and Isaiah are the two most powerful 
books in the Bible. Nothing can compare with 
them in beauty except the Sermon on the Mount.” 
Boston American, June 2, 1923. 

Commenting upon Job 28: 12-23, a certain writer 
claimed that they contained “essential wisdom, far off 
and exceeding deep; who can find it out?” So, too, 
Job 38: 22-23 is far off and exceeding deep, fraught 
with advanced thought and science which, when found 
out even partially, enabled the United States to cor¬ 
rectly make and use the explosive T. N, T. in the 
World War. 

Isaiah 

“Isaiah is the name of the greatest, and both 
in life and in death the most influential of the 
Old Testament prophets.” Encylopedia Britan - 
nica. 


147 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


Ingersoll made comparisons of the discoveries and 
inventions made during our modern times with ac¬ 
complishments of ancient times. His allegations are 
subject to due consideration, although some persons 
do not consider that allegations made by Ingersoll have 
any bearing whatsoever on religion. But for the sake 
of comparison, and to follow both Ingersoll and White 
into the subject matter introduced by them, these fac¬ 
tors and features are here considered briefly. 

There have been wonderful discoveries and inven¬ 
tions in various branches of science during modern 
times,—in geography, chemistry, surgery, electricity, 
navigation of air and sea, mechanics, etc. The tele¬ 
graph, telephone, telescope, microscope, wireless, 
radio, x-ray, aeroplane, automobile, printing press, 
farm implements, clocks, chronometers, foods, rail¬ 
roads, steamboats, processes in art, masonry and ex¬ 
plosives, whether arrived at through accident, chance 
or otherwise, all are entitled to due recognition and 
credit. But it should also be remembered that, to a 
very great extent, the ancients first discovered and 
produced many of the most important and essential 
materials, implements and fundamentals, some of 
which are mentioned in the following list, that now 
enter into the conception of modern inventions. To 


148 


COMPARISONS 


be consistent and just, future generations will likewise 
give due credit to those of preceding generations, some 
of them now known and referred to as Ancients and 
Moderns. 

Here are just a few of the things which we owe to 
the Ancients: language, hieroglyphics, letters, nu¬ 
merals, money, law, will, architecture, engineering, 
buildings, bricks, sanitation, ventilation, acids, 
masonry, chemistry, ointments, perfumery, jewelry, 
colors, bells, wheels, harnesses, boats, anchors, bronze, 
brass, copper, iron, glass, gold, silver, books, geometry, 
history, oratory, clothing, bread, furniture, vintage, 
census, hammers, nails, and other useful and orna¬ 
mental articles, utensils and products too numerous to 
mention, but which have been referred to by many 
authorities and writers from time to time. A glance 
through this list reveals at once what originals , what 
fundamentals were produced by the Ancients which 
have contributed in various ways to many modern in¬ 
ventions and discoveries, and to prospective future 
accomplishments beyond estimation. What were In- 
gersoll and White thinking of to hint at such an in¬ 
vidious comparison between Ancients and Moderns? 
Even the very few of the above-mentioned items are 
sufficient to bury their arguments beyond resurrection, 


149 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


and in view of all the records and information obtain¬ 
able, it appears that Ingersoll and White had really 
nothing whatever to offer as a challenge for compari¬ 
son in behalf of their selected seven men, whose theo¬ 
ries were based principally on assumption, error and 
speculation. 

Many Christians have claimed and continue to claim 
that the Holy Bible is not to be accepted as an author¬ 
ity on astronomy, cosmogony, certain chronology or 
science, but only as an authority on religion and salva¬ 
tion. Such a claim indicates limitation, but such claim¬ 
ants forget that at times they conspicuously accept the 
Holy Bible as the original authority on many other 
matters not relevant to religion, viz.—history, chro¬ 
nology, poetry, philosophy, predictions and many other 
factors pertaining to knowledge of which there is de¬ 
finite reference, the steam engine, the flying machine, 
the telegraph, wars. 

In view of these various admissions as to the cor¬ 
rectness and reliability of the Holy Bible on such mat¬ 
ters, sometimes for many centuries in advance, why 
then do these claimants attempt to place upon The 
Word the restrictions of incompetence in matters con¬ 
tained in and pertaining to Itself—creation and the 
order of the universe? Why do they claim it to be so 
infallible in so many varied instances and not reliable 
as to its own province? 


150 


XVI 


Religion and Science 

Under the above caption, certain opponents of the 
Fundamentalists are now anxiously and energetically 
engaged in attempts to prove that there is no antago¬ 
nism between religion and science. By applying these 
two terms as they do, such opponents are befogging 
the issue, as there are many religions other than those 
which have the Bible, the Books of the Old and New 
Testaments, partially or entirely, as their basis of be¬ 
lief. The vital issue is not Religion vs. Science, but 
the Bible vs. Science. 

The aforesaid opponents cite certain theories rela¬ 
tive to astronomy and cosmogony in the various con¬ 
troversies and call these theories “science.” It is that 
sort of alleged science that does antagonize Scripture. 
Distinguish between science and that so-called science, 
and the course is definite and clear; mix and befog 
them and arguments pro and con can continue in¬ 
definitely, as past and present conditions certainly re¬ 
veal beyond a doubt. 


1S1 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


According to published reports under date of May 
26, 1923, a joint statement declaring that there is no 
antagonism between religion and science was signed 
and issued. This statement, representing the conclu¬ 
sions of a group of forty distinguished Americans, 
was prepared by Dr. Robert A. Millikan, formerly of 
the University of Chicago, apparently under cover of 
the theory of evolution. The intents and purposes of 
the aforesaid statement have not in the least distin¬ 
guished between science and so-called science or be¬ 
tween various religions; it remains a misleading, in¬ 
definite public statement. 

In line with this statement, Dr. Millikan in The 
Christian Century (Undenominational), issued an¬ 
other statement reported in The Literary Digest of 
July 14, 1923, as follows: 

“Again, both science and religion have reached 
their present status through a process of develop¬ 
ment from the crudest beginnings, and the great 
leaders of the past must be judged by their stand¬ 
ards rather than by ours. Once get this point 
of view and you will never think of asking 
whether Genesis is to be taken as a modern text¬ 
book of science. It was written long before there 
was any such thing as science. Everyone who 
reflects believes in one way or the other in God.” 


152 


RELIGION AND SCIENCE 


According to other information from other authori¬ 
ties, some of which appears in various chapters of this 
book, that aforesaid public statement reveals mislead¬ 
ing inconsistencies and errors. In connection there¬ 
with consider the belief, conclusions and claims of 
some other authorities, notably Darwin and Wallace, 
and especially the admission of Darwin,— 

“Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate 
but was at last complete. The rate was so slow 
that I felt no distress.” Encylopedia Britannica. 

Darwin, formerly religious, slowly but surely aban¬ 
doned religion, disbelieved after he entertained and ac¬ 
cepted evolutionary ideas. Such was Darwin’s con¬ 
fession that evolution did contradict and was an oppo¬ 
nent of religion, and it was well known that Wallace 
had previously given up all belief in revealed religion. 
Wallace also claimed that evolution contradicts and 
is an opponent of religion, and Darwin and Wallace 
are herewith cited because their theories are at the 
bottom of the present bitter controversies. 

The late Professor John W. Draper, of the Uni¬ 
versity of New York, regarded evolution to be a 
principal factor in the conflict between religion and 
science, while the late Professor White claimed the 


153 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


struggle was between dogmatic theology and science. 
Both claimed that it is useless to attempt to reconcile 
the statements in Genesis with the discoveries of 
science. 

Certainly there is nothing indefinite about Draper’s 
and White’s conclusions. They use the terms, “war¬ 
fare,” “conflict,” and “antagonist,” while the others 
conspicuously announce, “no conflict” and “no antag¬ 
onism.” Draper claimed, “One of the antagonists 
must give way,” while the others claim, substantially, 
“There is no antagonist to give way.” 

Professor A. D. White, in his work A History of 
the Warfare of Science with Theology, claims that 
instead of it being Religion vs. Science, it is a struggle 
between Dogmatic Theology and Science. In this 
work he quotes Mr. Gladstone, as follows: 

“In an address at Liverpool, Mr. Gladstone re¬ 
marked, 'Upon the ground of what is termed 
evolution, God is relieved of the labour of crea¬ 
tion, in the name of unchangeable laws He is 
discharged from governing the world.’ ” 

Evidently Mr. Gladstone did not fail to see that the 
theory of evolution is an antagonist of God and 
Christianity. 


154 


RELIGION AND SCIENCE 


The fact that the terms “conflict,” “warfare,” 
“struggle,” and “antagonism” are definitely used and 
applied, and bitter charges and countercharges con¬ 
tinue to be made, reveals that it cannot be science, but 
the taken-for-granted, so-called science that is the 
disturbing factor, practically all the contestants fail¬ 
ing to distinguish between true science and alleged 
science. 

Some opponents of Scripture, anticipating increas¬ 
ing difficulties, are resorting to other tactics, alarmed 
that the alleged results from the Columbus and 
Magellan voyages are not strong enough and may not 
always hold as sufficient proof for their arguments. 
Witness the various published statements relative to 
even older civilizations when the earth was regarded 
as a sphere many thousands of years before Christ; 
such claimants are especially anxious to have some 
kind of a spherical belief prominently advertised at a 
date so far, far back in the past that Genesis, Moses 
and Bible times will appear ridiculously modern in 
comparison therewith. So in the future we may 
expect references to other times still more remote, it 
only being necessary to have them sufficiently removed 
for the purposes of the opponents of Genesis. 

However, the alleged fact of such a civilization 


155 


HIS PRONOUNCEMENT 


would contradict Dr. Millikan’s claim that “Genesis 
was written long before any such thing as science,” 
because science would certainly be connected with that 
superior civilization before Genesis was written, ante¬ 
dating Dr. Millikan’s data; thus he is doubly contra¬ 
dicted. 

We should not overlook, however, or intentionally 
disregard that exhortation that appears in the closing 
verses in the closing chapter of the Bible— 

“If any man shall add unto these things, God 
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in 
this book; and if any man shall take away from 
the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall 
take away his part out of the book of life and out 
of the holy city, and from the things which are 
written in this book.” 

That warning is significant; it is neither affirmation 
nor negation. But the greatest and most conclusive 
test of the entire Bible from the first chapter of 
Genesis to the last chapter of The Revelation, is the 
correct analysis of the Magellan voyage and similar 
voyages, and the analysis of the Panama Canal and 
other canals. Such a test is absolutely necessary for 
a speedy and correct solution of the vital issues now 


156 


RELIGION AND SCIENCE 


pending relative to the Bible, religion and the science 
of navigation. 

When all is said and done, pro and con, the actual, 
visible, daily demonstrations on the earth by the flow 
of the waters of the rivers of the earth, and the actual, 
visible, practical demonstrations by man,—notably the 
Chinese, Panama and Suez canals,—with one sweep 
dispose of the assumptions and contradictions and ver¬ 
biage of Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and others of 
their school and their advocates. 

Dr. Millikan says “reflect.” Yes, reflect, that 
is the principal purpose of this book, that those 
who read will reflect, and not substitute “taken-for- 
granted” for reflection. It is noticeable that many 
prominent clergymen claim that they are liberal, toler¬ 
ant and open-minded and only seek truth; that they 
are ever ready to sincerely consider any information 
that may lead them to discover that they are mistaken 
or have not correctly or sufficiently understood certain 
factors upon which they have based their opinions and 
conclusions. Dr. Millikan’s admonition comes to them 
with startling clarity, especially on those momentous 
pronouncements to which the writer of Genesis added, 
“And it was so.” 

The End 


157 






N 
















































































' 
































































































• B 


> 














* 


















■ 
















































































. 






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































1 









































